Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Glamorgan (Caerphilly Division), in the room of Morgan Jones, esquire, deceased. — [Sir Charles Edwards.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION (LORD HANKEY'S APPOINTMENT).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether, in connection with Lord Hankey's appointment to the Permanent Mandates Commission, he will give precise particulars, including periods and territory involved, of Lord Hankey' s experence of native Colonial administration?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): Lord Hankey's distinguished career does not include any direct handling of native Colonial administration. But, as the hon. Member is aware from my answer to him on 6th June, there is no specific requirement that members of the Permanent Mandates Commission should possess such experience, and I am sure that the House will agree that Lord Hankey's exceptionally long and intimate experience of administrative problems of all kinds renders him particularly well qualified to serve on the Commission.

Mr. Mander: Is it not a very great pity that the precedent set in the past has not been followed by appointing some outstanding British administrator who has had experience of native Colonial administration?

Mr. Butler: No doubt the value of a knowledge of Colonial administration is a matter which should always be borne in

mind but I think we have been exceptionally fortunate in this case.

Mr. Mander: Would it not have been better to appoint the Colonial Secretary himself?

Mr. Butler: If there is any suggestion of a comparison between distinguished persons, I find it difficult to distinguish which is the more distinguished of those two.

Mr. T. Williams.: May I ask whether Lord Hankey has gone to the Mandates Commission to submit the case of the Government for the White Paper, or as an impartial member of the Commission?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN CONSUL, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether he has completed his inquiry into the matter of allegations made at the Manchester Assizes on 19th May to the effect that the German Consul in Liverpool had, at an earlier date, assisted a man named Joseph Kelly to make contacts with foreign agents on the Continent to whom he sold plans of the Government factory at Euxton, Lancashire; what are the results of the inquiry; how far was the German Consul in Liverpool and /or his staff implicated; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a continuation or recurrence of such activities on the part of this consul and /or his staff?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): In view of what transpired from the proceedings in court, His Majesty's Government must accept the conclusion that the German Consulate in Liverpool was implicated in this case, and they have, therefore, requested the German Government to arrange for the withdrawal of the Consul, Herr Reinhardt.

Mr. Kirby: While thanking the Prime Minister for his reply, may I ask when this request was sent to the German Government?

The Prime Minister: A few days ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of Herr Hitler stating


that he decided to intervene in Spain in July, 1936; and does he contemplate making a protest against this misleading of the Non-intervention Committee?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the fast part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative. The German Government must be well aware of the views of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not evident that a policy of gross deception has been carried on all the time in the Non-intervention Committee?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. The whole gist of my question on the Order Paper is directed towards this question of the complete breach of faith in connection with the Non-intervention Committee. I consider that I should be allowed to ask a Supplementary Question dealing with the conduct of the Government in the Non-intervention Committee.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he will bring the matter of the use of German submarines during the Spanish war before the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The question of foreign intervention in the Spanish civil war was more than once considered by the League, and now that the war is ended, no useful purpose would be served by raising the matter afresh.

Mr. Gallacher: When the head of an important State openly declares that he has been carrying on a policy of piracy on the High Seas, is it not desirable that this should be discussed at the League of Nations with a view to taking steps to prevent anything of the kind occurring again?

Mr. Butler: I think that if the hon. Gentleman had attended the discussions of the League, he would be aware that many of the Members of the League did not approve of the question of non-intervention in the Spanish conflict coming before the Council.

Mr. Thurtle: Even if the hon. Gentleman does not think it worth while raising the question again, will the Government bear this in mind as one other reason why they should not trust the word of the German Government?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether during the progress of the Spanish civil war the Government had any information as to two submarines having been placed at the disposal of General Franco by the German Government; and, if so, what representations were made to the German Government concerning this breach of her non-intervention undertakings?

Mr, Butler: Reports that German submarines were co-operating with General Franco's forces were brought to the attention of His Majesty's Government, but it was not possible to vouch for them sufficiently to justify the making of representations.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not a reflection on the Naval Intelligence Service that His Majesty's Government did not have conclusive evidence about the activities of these submarines?

Mr. Butler: I should not accept any reflection on the Naval Intelligence Service, which I think is the best in the world.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask whether it is not the case that during the whole course of the Spanish civil war, His Majesty's Government always had the information which fitted in with their policy and never had any information which revealed the follies of that policy?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member should not ask questions of that kind, which he knows he would not be allowed to put on the Paper.

Mr. Shinwell: Am I to understand from your Ruling, Sir, that we are not to be allowed to ask supplementary questions which bear on the Government's policy either in the past or now?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows quite well the Rules that apply to questions. It has always been the rule that supplementary questions should conform to the same Rules.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is it not in order for an hon. Member to suggest that the Government's policy is such and such a policy?

Mr. Speaker: Question Time is a time to ask questions and not to make suggestions.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether the coasts of the Spanish zone in Morocco opposite Gibraltar, and excluding Ceuta, remain unfortified as agreed by the Spanish Government under the provisions of the Franco-Spanish Treaty, 1912?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend's information is that no part of the coast comprised in the Spanish zone, which, of course, excludes Ceuta and Melilla, has been fortified.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Prime Minister whether he has information that apart from light war material, any German or Italian aeroplanes, tanks or artillery have been sent back from Spain to their countries of origin; and whether the Spanish Government has paid or been asked to pay, in cash or in kind, for the war material left in its control by the German and Italian authorities?

Mr. Butler: A number of aeroplanes are reported to have left Spain, but my Noble Friend has no definite evidence about tanks or heavy artillery. It is understood that a substantial proportion of the material handed over is being sold rather than given away.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: As His Majesty's Government are completely satisfied with the good faith and honour of the Italian Government in this matter, is there any reason why they should not ask the Italian Government for this information?

Mr. Butler: I have given the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House the information in my possession and I think it is well to confine our attention to the information received in that way.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Italian Government for the information, for which he is being pressed by several hon. Members in different parts of the House?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly consult my Noble Friend on that subject.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the duty of the Italian Government under the Anglo-Italian agreement, in reference to the exchange of military information to inform His Majesty's Government of what they have done?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member refers to the terms of the Agreement, he will see that the provision for exchange of military information does not apply to the Western Mediterranean.

Mr. Denman: Is it not far better that this material should remain in Spain than that it should go to Italy?

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Prime Minister whether he has information as to the number of Italian airmen, and Italian or ex-Italian aircraft, still on the Island of Majorca?

Mr. Butler: At the beginning of June about 200 Italian airmen remained in Majorca. Since then they are reported to have been leaving in small batches, and none are expected to remain. The number of aircraft of Italian origin left in Majorca is understood to be very small.

Mr. Bartlett: Will the Government consider the advisability of suggesting to the Italian Government how very much the loyal carrying out of the Anglo-Italian Pact, in respect of the Island of Majorca, would facilitate that return to good relations which we all desire?

Mr. Butler: Certainly that consideration will be borne in mind. I would point out that we expect the Italian airmen to leave Majorca, and, as I said in my answer, the number of aircraft of Italian origin left there is said to be very small indeed.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement in an Italian Government publication that 100,000 Italian troops were sent to Spain between 15th December, 1936, and 15th April, 1937; and whether he is satisfied that they have now all, or almost all, been withdrawn from Spanish territory?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part in the affirmative.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the official Italian statement that 100,000 Italian troops were sent to Spain; and since the Government have only told us about 40,000 being withdrawn, will they inquire at Rome what has happened to the other 60,000?

Mr. Butler: I should like first to see the statement, to the publication of which the hon. Gentleman refers, if he will be kind enough to send it to me.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister for what reason the House of Commons was not informed of the statement made at the end of March, 1938,by Count Ciano to the British Ambassador at Rome to the effect that some Italian war material might, when the war was over, be sold or given to the Spanish Government?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to questions on 7th June.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Seeing that the fact of this conversation with Count Ciano was of fundamental importance in the negotiations which the Prime Minister was carrying on, ought it not to have been reported to the House, when the Agreement was laid before the House?

The Prime Minister: It has already been explained that the Government did not consider it of fundamental importance.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment.

Mr. Leach: asked the Prime Minister the date, tenor, and circumstances of all occasions since July, 1936, when assurances implying non-intervention in the Spanish civil war were given by the Governments of Germany and Italy?

Mr. Butler: The German Government acceded to the Non-intervention Agreement on 17th August, 1936, and the Italian Government on 21st August. To give the full particulars asked for by the hon. Member would involve an amount of research which would be hardly justifiable.

Mr. Leach: May I take it that all these assurances which these two Governments have made have been accepted as true?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have made clear throughout the Spanish war that they regretted that intervention was taking place on both sides.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is it not the case that at a meeting of the Non-intervention Committee in February, 1937, the Italian Government said it was a monstrous thing to charge the Italian Government with having sent these troops?

Mr. Butler: If the hon. and learned Member desires me to do so, I will look into the minutes of the Non-intervention Committee.

Mr. Mander: Would it not be a comparatively easy matter for the right hon. Gentleman to give the number of occasions on which the assurances given were actually complied with?

Miss Rathbone: Seing that the right hon. Gentleman has several times repeated the statement that there was intervention on both sides, and on one occasion said that there had been intervention on both sides from the beginning of the war, may I ask whether there is any evidence whatever of Russian intervention prior to the middle of October, 1936?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether during the Spanish civil war any reports were received at the Admiralty of the operations of the two submarines placed at the disposal of General Franco by the German Government; and whether any attacks upon British ships were carried out by these submarines?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): I have no information to support the belief that German submarines were operating as part of General Franco's forces.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement made by the German Government that these submarines were operating and that they rendered very valuable service indeed?

Mr. Shakespeare: What I said was that we had no information to that effect.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not very bad outlook for anti-submarine work during war time if the presence of these submarines did not become known to His Majesty's Navy during the course of the Spanish war?

Mr. A. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Admiralty have no official information or no unofficial information?

Mr. Shakespeare: No information at all.

Mr. Mander: What is the use of people being on secret service if we get no information from them?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is it pot a fact that when the Nyon Agreement was signed it was brought about primarily not only by piracy, but by active submarines from either Italy or Germany?

Mr. Shakespeare: The nationality was not known.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister what reply has been received by His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo to the representations made to the Japanese Government in regard to the action of the so-called Reformed Government of Nanking in endeavouring to insist upon certificates from Japanese authorities before clearance to inland ports is granted to British ships?

Mr. Butler: Representations were made to the Japanese Government on 6th June. Their reply is now awaited.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he will immediately inform the Japanese Government that, unless the threatened Japanese blockade of the British Concession at Tientsin is discontinued, Japanese will at once be denied all use of the ports of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Penang?

Mr. Butler: The question of what measures will be appropriate in regard to the Japanese blockade of the British Concession at Tientsin is at present under examination, and must depend in some degree upon the nature of the action taken by the Japanese.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask whether, in connection with the blockade that is now taking place, the British residents there are suffering in any way owing to any food shortage or increase in prices?

Mr. Butler: I understand it is not the intention of the Japanese to cut off food supplies. I will give the hon. Member an answer about prices if he will give me notice.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is it the Government's intention to make any further statement on this matter to-day or in the very near future?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is expecting an official report on the present situation, and no doubt he would wish me to

impart it to the House at the first opportunity.

Mr. Mander: Are His Majesty's Government working in close touch with the French and American Governments in connection with this matter?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may rest assured that there is close contact with both those Governments.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether he will inquire if the Japanese authorities have been deliberately arranging for strikes to be started in British mills in the part of the International Settlement of Shanghai and surroundings in Japanese occupation for the purpose of putting Japanese military guards in possession of British property, and take the appropriate steps to prevent such occurrences?

Mr. Butler: The situation is not quite as stated by my hon. Friend. The facts are that as a result of anti-British agitation a number of strikes have recently occurred at British-owned factories situated in the neighbourhood of Shanghai, but outside the International Settlement. That agitation appears to be directed by the Japanese-sponsored Chinese administration in Pootung and there is reason to believe that certain Japanese elements are actively connected with it. The circumstances in which Japanese marines were called in to restore order in one of the factories in question were explained in the answer I gave to questions on Monday last. Representations have been made both to the local Japanese authorities by His Majesty's Consul-Gen era 1 at Shanghai and to the Japanese Government by His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo, requesting that early steps should be taken to put a stop to the activities in question.

Mr. Moreing: Is it not a fact that parties have been organised by the Japanese authorities to proceed to British mills supporting and encouraging alleged industrial disputes and, as a consequence, disturbances have arisen and that these are not bona fide strikes but have been fomented by the Japanese authorities?

Mr. Butler: I have given my hon. Friend the facts as they have come to the attention of my noble Friend, and I referred to certain anti-British agitation which has taken place in this area.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: When will the Government really assert the prestige of Great Britain?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (POLICE, BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister the number of officers and /or constables of British nationality now serving in the Egyptian City Police who still require to have their services terminated under the terms of the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance with Egypt; and whether these officers and men will be entitled to compensation as well as a pension at the end of their services?

Mr. Butler: There are at present serving in the Egyptian City Police 25 officers and 77 constables of British nationality whose contracts have not yet been terminated. Those who have qualified for pensions have already been compensated under the terms of Egyptian Law No. 28 of 1923. Those who have not qualified for pensions and have therefore not already received compensation will receive a gratuity of one month's pay for each year of service (subject to a maximum of 12 months' pay) and effective repatriation expenses.

Mr. Day: May we be informed whether arrangements have been made to absorb these officers and men into other British forces?

Mr. Butler: I know there have been arrangements in some cases, and if the hon. Member will put down a specific question, I will give him an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — NINE-POWER TREATY.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether any of the signatories to the Nine-Power Treaty have in any way intimated their desire to either modify or determine same; and, if so, will he give particulars?

Mr. Butler: As far as my Noble Friend is aware, the answer is in the negative.

Mr. Day: Has any communication been received from the Imperial Government of Japan on the subject?

Mr. Butler: As the hon. Member is aware, we addressed a note to the Japanese Government on this subject, among others, to which there has not yet been a reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Mr. Dalton: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a further statement regarding the progress of the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Prime Minister whether conversations have commenced in Moscow between representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and His Majesty's Government, and if so, when is he likely to be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make as to the reception of the British plan by the Russian Government?

The Prime Minister: The only fresh information I can give is that Mr. Strang was due to arrive in Moscow this morning bearing the full instructions sent to guide His Majesty's Ambassador in the future conduct of the negotiations.

Mr. Dalton: If I put down another question on Monday, does the Prime Minister hope to be able to make a fuller statement then?

The Prime Minister: If there is any further information, of course I shall be happy to give it.

Mr. Hannah: Did anyone ever hear of a Russian being in a hurry?

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBYA (ITALIAN FORCES).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what are the numbers of Italian and German troops, respectively, at present stationed in Libya?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) on 8th March. My Noble Friend's reports do not indicate the presence of any German troops in Libya.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE.

FORIGN OFFICE STAFF.

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that all Foreign Office officials have been informed that on reaching the age of 25 they must resign from their Territorial or other


National Service units and remain at the full disposal of the Secretary of State, only those under 25 years of age being permitted to volunteer for such service; and how many persons under 25 years of age now in His Majesty's Foreign Office have so volunteered?

Mr. Butler: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part six. There is no objection to officers above the age of 25 joining part-time air-raid precautions services, provided they make it clear to the local authorities that the Department has first claim on their services.

Sir A. Wilson: Is it possible for them to become special constables in the London area?

Mr. Butler: I should want notice of that question.

BALLOON BARRAGE.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that in the recent call up of Territorials for balloon barrage service only a few days' notice was given; and, in view of the inconvenience caused to both the Territorial and his employer, will longer notice in future be given?

Captain Balfour: In accordance with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on16th May, formal calling up notices for the anti-aircraft units of the Territorial Army and for the balloon barrage units of the Auxiliary Air Force were issued as soon as the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill became law. In view of defence needs longer formal notice than 16 days was not practicable in this instance. It is intended whenever possible to give longer notice in future. In any individual case of special difficulty in which a replacement could be arranged the calling up date was deferred.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

ENSIGN AIR-LINERS.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air when all the 14 Ensign airliners, ordered by Imperial Airways, Limited, in 1934, will be in regular service; and what modifications are contemplated?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Of the 14 Ensign air-liners ordered by Imperial Airways, Limited,. 12 are having their existing type engines boosted to improve take-off. One has already been delivered so modified, and others will be delivered at the rate of one a week during the next seven weeks. Thereafter, the balance will be delivered at the rate of one a fortnight. It is the intention to re-engine at least eight of these aircraft with a more powerful engine, the American Wright Cyclone. A sufficient number of these engines and spares have already been ordered and deliveries will commence within four months. The aircraft will then be withdrawn from service one by one and fitted with these engines. No decision has yet been arrived at as to the re-engining of the 13th and 14th aircraft.

Mr. Perkins: Who will pay for these new engines— Imperial Airways, or the makers of the aeroplanes?

Captain Balfour: That is a different question. If the hon. Member puts it down he will get an answer.

AIRPORTS, LONDON.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any further statement as to the provision of an additional land airport to serve the future air traffic of the Metropolis?

Captain Balfour: I have nothing to add to the statement of policy with regard to the provision of airports for London which I made in the House on 9th March last. The hon. Member will have seen a recent report in the Press to the effect that the Court of Common Council of the City of London has voted an additional sum of £500,000 to develop the airport at Fairlop as a super-standard aerodrome. This decision is coupled with an arrangement under which a London Airports Advisory Committee, representative of owners of London airports, will be set up and asked to devise a formula for the allocation of the pooled receipts from traffic using these airports.

Mr. Day: Will that committee also be asked to make a decision as to a central airport for London?

Captain Balfour: The decision has been arrived at that London air transport needs will best be served, not by one central airport, but by a ring of first-class airports round London.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

CONTRACTS.

Colonel Burton: asked the Secretary of State for Air the position with regard to the three contracts entered into between the Air Ministry and Messrs. E.D. Winn and Company, between December, 1936, and February, 1937, amounting to £837,000; whether inquiries were made as to this firm's financial ability to carry out the contracts; and whether deliveries and execution of the work have in any way been delayed through the failure of this firm?

Captain Balfour: Work on the three contracts has been suspended since the order was made for the compulsory winding-up of the firm in question, but arrangements are in hand which I hope will enable work to be re-started almost immediately. Before the contracts were placed, the usual inquiries were made as to the firm's financial position.

KENLEY AERODROME.

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for Air what acreage of unenclosed land is to be thrown into Kenley aerodrome by the Bill now before a Select Committee of the House; and what acreage will be added to the commons to compensate for the unenclosed lands so taken?

Captain Balfour: No unenclosed land will be added to Kenley aerodrome under the Bill referred to by the hon. Member. About a quarter of an acre of unenclosed land by the road side is being acquired from the Corporation of the City of London to form part of the new road to replace Hayes Lane, but in return my Department is transferring to the City Corporation about one acre of enclosed land acquired by the Air Ministry from a private source. This land adjoins Coulsdon Common and will now be held by the corporation as an open space under the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act, 1878. The net effect is thus to enlarge Coulsdon Common by three-quarters of an acre

LANDING GROUNDS, SCOTLAND.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will secure another site for his purposes instead of encroaching upon the South-Eastern Counties of Scotland Sanatorium at East Fortune, which would become useless if the steps contemplated by his Department were taken?

Captain Balfour: Great difficulty has been experienced in finding sites for relief landing grounds required to supplement the main landing area of the Flying Training School at Gullane. The site to which the hon. Member refers is one of those under consideration by my Department, but no decision has been reached pending examination of the various issues involved, including that urged by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mathers: Is it not possible for the Minister to give a more favourable answer than that? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling in the counties served by this sanatorium about the possibility of this sanatorium being rendered useless?

Captain Balfour: I regret that I cannot give a more positive answer than that which I have given to-day, but I will add that my right hon. Friend is aware of the point of view put by the hon. Member. On the other hand, the House will realise the great difficulty that we have in obtaining sites. This flying school cannot operate with maximum efficiency without two relief landing grounds, and so far we can find only two possible sites, one of which is this one. We are examining the situation and, as I told the hon. Member, his point of view is being taken full account of.

Mr. George Griffiths: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman know of the difficulty of local authorities in getting sites for sanatoriums? The Minister for Air will tell him, because he used to be Minister of Health.

BRITISH AIR POWER.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a general statement on the existing air power of Great Britain; and, in particular, whether it is now adequate to counter any menace from Germany?

Captain Balfour: I am unable to add to what my right hon. Friend said when he dealt with this question on discussion of the Air Estimates for 1939 on 9th and 14th March last. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a question by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 21st February.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "THETIS."

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are no means of fixing ropes or hawsers on to a submarine; and whether he will consider the advisability of fixing shackle plates on to these ships similar to those to which the check chains are attached when a big ship is launched upon the Clyde?

Mr. Shakespeare: Devices for fixing ropes or hawsers to a submarine do exist, but they are not sufficiently strong to enable a sunken submarine to be lifted. This and similar questions affecting the salvage of submarines are, however, being reviewed.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these shackle plates can be made of flush pattern and so placed on the hull of the ship as to enable you to thread a hawser through several of them and therefore not leave it to one or two, but the entire length of the vessel?

Mr. Shakespeare: I am not a technician. I understand there are no mechanical or constructional difficulties, but the question involves a larger question of policy that I would be pleased to discuss with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Gibson: What is the purpose of the present equipment? Is it to enable submarines to be raised by a hawser?

Mr. Buchanan: In view of the importance of the question, and that it is not a matter for private discussion between the Minister and the hon. Member, will he kindly tell the House what the real reason was for not carrying out the hon. Member's suggestion?

Mr. Shakespeare: I gave it in my answer that these matters are now under

review, and I think a more appropriate occasion will occur when they have been reviewed.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Does it need the loss of a hundred lives to inspire Admiralty action?

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has ever tried to raise a submarine except when an accident has occurred; and whether he will now arrange for a submarine that is in commission to be sunk and experimented upon until a way has been found to raise it, so that men who take the risks of the submarine service may have the knowledge that a disaster similar to that of the "Thetis" can never happen again?

Mr. Shakespeare: In 1931 a submarine (L. 4) was sunk in "A" lock, Portsmouth, and raised in order to test certain apparatus and fittings proposed for salving submarines. This apparatus was used in the attempt to raise the submarine "M. 2." In 1936 the submarine "L. 19" was intentionally sunk during certain trials and salved after six weeks' work. But the operation was artificial, as the vessel was prepared for salvage before the trials in a manner which would not be practicable under ordinary service conditions. I am doubtful whether the hon. Member's suggestion would provide data that is not already available from past experience; it will, however, be borne in mind.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the hon. Gentleman put before the Admiralty the advisability of not only the Navy men but the civilians who are employed on these submarines being trained? Is ho aware that my own union has lost six members who were civilians working there, who had had no previous experience of how to get out of the escape chamber, and will the Admiralty see to it that all individuals who are employed on board a submarine are taught in the same way as the Navy men how to escape out of the escape chamber?

Mr. Shakespeare: That question raises rather a different issue from that in the question on the Paper, but if the hon. Member or anyone else, be he naval or civilian, has any suggestions which he thinks will contribute to a solution of this problem, we shall be only too delighted to have them examined in the Admiralty.

Mr. Logan: Has it been suggested, with regard to the angle at which the "Thetis" went down, that experiments should take place to see what could be done with a ship down at the same depth and at the same angle?

Mr. Shakespeare: I think these are rather matters that are more appropriate for the public inquiry.

Mr. R. Gibson: Have electro-magnetic methods been tried in connection with the raising of this submarine?

Mr. Shakespeare: There is a very considerable body of experience in salving submarines now available, but there is no ideal solution.

Mr. Macquisten: Will the hon. Gentleman not direct the Admiralty to find some means to make submarines impossible, so that we shall not need to have such means of defence and no enemy will have them either?

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether pending the report of the public inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis" steps will be taken for a naval vessel capable of communicating with a submarine under water to accompany all submarines built for the Navy on their builder's trials, as is done for naval trials, and for the submarine to indicate her position, either by towing a buoy or by showing her periscopes from time to time, in order not to be out of touch for such periods as three hours?

Mr. Shakespeare: Arrangements are being made for a naval vessel to accompany a submarine when carrying out builder's diving trials and to ensure communication at reasonable intervals.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is it not the case that all submarines during peace time are fitted with means for telephonic communication with the surface and that they had it before the War?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, Sir. That is a question which, with many others, is now under review.

Mr. MacLaren: Has it not been in the mind of the Admiralty to carry out their own suggestion of allowing oil to escape from submarines when they are undergoing trials so that accompanying vessels will always be able to track them?

Mr. Shakespeare: There are a good many suggestions of that nature, and all of them are under consideration now.

Mr. Logan: Can the hon. Gentleman state why the contact between the submarine and the buoy which, as an emergency measure, is always floated, was discontinued, and has been discontinued since 1918?

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that Press representatives were forbidden to take the names of those who attended the memorial service on the "Thetis," which was held at St. Martins-in-the Fields, on Wednesday last; whether this was done on the instructions of the Admiralty, and what was the reason for such instructions being given?

Mr. Shakespeare: On the occasion of the memorial service to which the hon. Member refers the Admiralty requested the Press not to take the names of those attending the service. This was done in order that delay in entering the church should not thereby be caused and because the Admiralty were anxious not to cause additional distress to mourners on such an occasion. The Admiralty itself had a list of those attending both in an official capacity and because they were relatives of the deceased men and the Admiralty representative who sat with the Press during the service showed this list to each of them at the time and it was subsequently available at the Admiralty for any Press representative who desired to see it.

MALTA (RATINGS' WIVES).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements have been made for bringing home from Malta the wives of the naval ratings who have been withdrawn?

Mr. Shakespeare: The wives of naval ratings who wish to go to Malta have normally to make their own arrangements at their own expense for going out and returning. Arrangements were, however, made this year for certain liners to make special calls at Malta, if requested by the local naval authorities, since the Mediterranean Fleet will be absent from Malta longer than usual, and wives may in consequence return to England earlier than intended. So far as I am aware, no such request has been made. Apart from the usual reliefs, no naval ratings have been withdrawn from the Mediterranean Fleet.

PORT EDGAR BASE.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what developments are to take place on the south side of the Forth, near Queens-bury, which have led to the closing of But law Holiday Camp; whether he is aware of the resultant hardship to unemployed families, and whether he is in consultation with the Scottish Commissioner for Special Areas with a view of arranging for an alternative holiday camp?

Mr. Shakespeare: The Port Edgar Naval Base is being reopened to provide facilities for housing and training Royal Naval Special Reservists in Scotland and to allow of the transfer of certain naval activities from Portland. The Scottish Commissioner for Special Areas has been informed of the necessity of the Admiralty resuming possession of this land.

Mr. Mathers: Is anything being done by the Admiralty to assist the Scottish Special Areas Commissioner to meet the needs of those people, who have been so badly disappointed?

Mr. Shakespeare: We can only meet them in so far as we have land available, but I think the Special Commissioner will be able to do something.

VOLUNTEER AND SPECIAL RESERVES (TRAINING FACILITIES).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what naval training facilities are available on the west coast of Scotland; and whether, in view of the desire of many young fishermen to receive naval training in place of Militia service, he can state whether any additional facilities are to be provided?

Mr. Shakespeare: Training facilities for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are available on the west coast of Scotland in the Clyde Division at Glasgow and His Majesty's Ship „ Carrick „ at Greenock. Young fishermen who express a preference for naval training are being accepted in the Royal Naval Special Reserve and arrangements will be made for their training in that Reserve.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Ralph Beaumont: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that whereas a naval

officer is entitled to an allowance in respect of a child until the child attains the age of 16, a naval rating is only entitled to such an allowance while his child is under the elementary school-leaving age and that allowance does not continue after that date even if the child is continuing his education; and whether he will take steps to remove this anomaly?

Mr. Shakespeare: The question is one which affects all three Services and is under consideration. I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply.

HIS MAJESTY' S SHIP "ENDEAVOUR" (INQUIRY).

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the inquiry into the causes of the excessive punishments of the crew of the New Zealand surveying ship His Majesty's Ship "Endeavour" has been completed; what is the report of the inquiry; what steps are being taken to avoid such a large number of punishments in the future; whether the conditions of service are to be improved; and whether any remission of sentences are to be granted to ratings who have committed offences owing to the harsh conditions?

Mr. Shakespeare: The inquiry has been completed, but so far only a brief telegraphic summary has been received, and the whole matter will be given careful consideration in all its aspects when the written report, which is expected shortly, arrives. I may, however, say at once that no serious cause for discontent has been revealed, and a great majority of the ship's company deeply resents the allegations which have appeared in a certain section of the Press. The men were given complete liberty to make any representations they wished, but not one had any complaint to make of harsh treatment or unjust punishment, and there can therefore be no question of any remission of sentences. There were certain complaints in regard to overcrowding and the condition of the ship, and these will be examined in detail when the Commodore's full report is received.

Mr. Parker: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the very large number of punishments which took place during the period in question?

Mr. Shakespeare: When we see the full report we shall have a better view of


things and be able to form a judgment on a question like that.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Is it not most unusual to make a declaration that there will be no remission of sentences before the First Lord has seen the report?

Mr. Perkins: Do I understand that the members of the crew deprecate the statements which have been made in this House and in the Press?

Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, I understand that before the court of inquiry was held the ship's company themselves made representations to the captain of. the ship that they resented these allegations and the statement that this ship was the "hell ship of the Navy," and they asked that publicity might be given to their resentment.

COMMISSIONS (LOWER DECK CANDIDATES).

Mr. Parker: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the educational and seamanship examinations for the 42 lower deck candidates for commissions who have taken the special course for sub-lieutenant have been completed; whether he will state the results and the certificates obtained, and the number of commissions to be awarded this year?

Mr. Shakespeare: The results of the educational and seamanship examinations are not yet available. I hope it will be possible to publish them in the course of next week, and I will forward a copy to the hon. Member. The number of commissions to be awarded depends of course on the recommendations of the Final Selection Board.

TANGANYIKA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make with reference to the speech of Sir Mark Young, Governor of Tanganyika, at Dar-es-Salaam, on 24th May, to the effect that it had been hoped that a more clear and precise statement could have been made regarding the future of the territory, but that there was now no doubt as to the will of the British people that Tanganyika territory should remain within the confines of the British Empire under the sovereignty of the King; and whether, in view of the

terms of the mandate from the League of Nations, it is proposed to follow this policy?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): My right hon. Friend has seen a newspaper report of the speech in question. As regards the question of the future of Tanganyika, I have nothing to add to the statement which he made in this House on 7th December last.

Mr. Mander: May I ask whether it is accurate to describe territory held under a mandate as being under the sovereignty of the King?

Sir T. Inskip: No doubt that was an inadvertent statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ARAB IMMIGRATION.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any restriction on the immigration of Arabs into Palestine; and, if so, will he give particulars?

Sir T. Inskip: Yes, Sir. The Palestine Immigration Ordinance applied to all persons wishing to enter Palestine irrespective of race. In each immigration quota it is customary to reserve a small proportion of certificates for non-Jews. Strict measures are taken to prevent the illegal immigration of Arabs.

PRISONERS.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, now that His Majesty's Government have declared their Palestine policy, there is to be a pardon for certain categories of political prisoners in the near future?

Sir T. Inskip: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on 17th May.

Captain Graham: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the policy of the Palestine Government that those political prisoners who have served their sentences are not to be released until they have collected so many rifles and ammunition for the authorities?

Sir T. Inskip: No, Sir. The release of prisoners detained under the Emergency


Regulations is in no way dependent on the collection or surrender of rifles and ammunition.

Captain Graham: If I bring cases to the notice of my right hon. Friend's Department, will he give them his attention?

Sir T. Inskip: I will certainly consider any facts that my hon. and gallant Friend brings to my attention.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has given his approval to an ordinance of the High Commissioner, Palestine, authorising commanding officers of Government vessels under certain circumstances to fire into ships carrying intending immigrants to Palestine; and whether any corresponding ordinance has been issued authorising the military authorities to fire upon such immigrants who succeed in landing in Palestine?

Sir T. Inskip: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great indignation that will be provoked if this power is exercised; and will he, therefore, take steps to ensure that commanding officers seek and obtain the consent of the High Commissioner or the naval authorities before exercising the power?

Sir T. Inskip: I am sure that every possible consideration will be borne in mind in connection with this matter.

Colonel Wedgwood: Is it consonant with the tradition of the British Navy to take action against these escaping slaves?

PROTECTORATES (BRITISH NATURALISATION).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that residence in the Colony of Nigeria qualifies a person for naturalisation as a British subject while residence in the Protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria does not; and will he take steps to remedy this and ensure that residence within the Protectorates shall constitute

residence within His Majesty's Dominions for the purpose of naturalisation?

Sir T. Inskip: As my right hon. Friend has already informed the hon. Member, His Majesty's Government are considering the introduction of legislation which, if passed, would enable residence in certain British Protectorates (including the Nigerian Protectorate) to be counted as a qualification for naturalisation as a British subject. It is not yet possible to say when such legislation is likely to be introduced.

Mr. Lipson: Will my right hon. Friend see that this legislation is passed in the very near future, in view of the fact that an Imperial Conference many years ago made a recommendation to this effect, and also because, in view of the international situation, many Europeans are anxious about their position?

Sir T. Inskip: I have no doubt my right hon. Friend is fully alive to the importance of passing legislation as soon as an opportunity presents itself.

UNEMPLOYMENT (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to grant Parliamentary time to allow discussion on the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of six Liverpool Members on the subject of excessive unemployment in Liverpool; and, if not, what are the reasons for the adverse decision having in mind the fact that the Motion has been tabled for several months?

[That this House requests the Government to give early consideration to the insistent appeal of the ratepayers of the City of Liverpool that the Government should give immediate assistance to effect a reduction in the rates, reduce the number of persons unemployed, and by expediting air-raid precautions and road and bridge building prepare the city and port to meet fully its important role in the event of national emergency.]

The Prime Minister: In view of the state of public business I can hold out no hope of time being given for the Motion referred to in the hon. Member's question.

Mr. Kirby: Am I to take it from that that it is the intention of the Government not to allow Private Members' Motions to be discussed?

The Prime Minister: I do not think the hon. Member should read into my answer any thing more than it said.

GREAT BRITAIN AND FRANCE (FORCES, COMMAND).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to consent to the appointment of a French General as the supreme commander of the British and French armed forces in the event of war?

The Prime Minister: The question of co-ordination of Command in the various threatres in which His Majesty's Forces might be called upon to co-operate with the French in the event of war necessarily forms part of the conversations between representatives of the two countries, but it would not be in the public interest to give information as to particular aspects of these conversations.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the French Press has stated that this policy has been determined, and that General Gamelin has been designated as supreme commander, and is the House to understand that that statement is without foundation?

The Prime Minister: The House must not take every statement they see in the Press as being correct.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that in the event of such an appointment being made it will be made in such a manner that the French Commander-in-Chief would be responsible to some inter-allied body and not to the French Government alone?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be in the public interest to discuss future arrangements.

AWARDS FOR GALLANTRY.

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of advising the restoration to the Royal Warrant regulating awards of the Victoria Cross the provision which it contained, until amended and consolidated in May, 1920, where under it could be awarded to officers and men of the armed forces who may perform acts of

conspicuous courage and bravery in circumstances of extreme danger, such as the foundering of a vessel at sea or in any other circumstances in which, through the courage or devotion displayed, life or public property might be saved?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that this alteration is called for. Other official awards of high standing such as the Albert Medal and the Medal of the Order of the British Empire, for gallantry, are available for services such as my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

EMERGENCY PLANS (PARLIAMENT).

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the emergency measures under consideration by the Government do not include any steps to suspend the ordinary activities of Parliament, particularly those by the exercise of which Parliament is enabled to criticise Members of the Executive?

The Prime Minister: A suspension of the ordinary activities of Parliament does not form part of the Government's emergency plans.

Mr. Thurtle: May we then assume that when Lord Bayford, the President of the Conservative Clubs' Association, suggested that Parliament should be suspended, he was merely giving expression to Conservative hopes, and not to Government intentions?

BRITISH PROPAGANDA.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Prime Minister whether he has in contemplation the creation of a ministry or office of propaganda for the purpose of countering the propaganda of the agencies of the Axis Powers, and for the purpose of making effective appeal for a rational peace to the working classes in every country In Europe?

The Prime Minister: I hope to be able to make a full statement on this subject to-morrow.

Mr. Johnston: Would the Prime Minister bear in mind when he makes his statement that very considerable apprehension exists in responsible quarters in


the Press that a retired diplomat should be appointed to a post for which he has no previous experience or qualifications?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will await the statement.

PROCEDURE (GUILLOTINE).

Mr. N. Maclean: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an Amendment to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act specifically dealing with the question of employers dismissing youths was not called owing to the operation of the Guillotine Motion, and that a similar provision has now had to be included in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Prevention of Evasion) Regulations, 1939; and whether he will secure that in future, when a Guillotine Motion is considered necessary to facilitate progress with any Bill, it will be framed to take effect on Clauses that are relatively of least importance?

The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that adequate discussion took place on the reinstatement Section of the Military Training Act which was in identical terms with the similar Section in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act. It was the view of the Government that the appropriate way to deal with the question of restraining employers from terminating the employment of their employés by reason of any duties or liabilities under the Acts in question was by way of regulation.

Mr. Maclean: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the Amendment was among the other Clauses which suffered from the Guillotine, and does he not think it is high time that a great deal of this legislation by reference was put an end to, and that Acts of Parliament should be the medium by which the people of this country realise the law of the country, without having to search through a hundred and one regulations?

The Prime Minister: No doubt that is a matter of opinion, but I think that the general view is that the method of regulation is a useful supplement to other methods.

Mr. Maclean: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the opera-

tion of the Guillotine, as presently practised, means the cutting out of very important issues that should be discussed on the Floor of the House, and allows relatively unimportant Clauses to be debated; and would it not be better, if the Guillotine has to be used, to make the selection in a more selective way rather than to put together a number of Clauses as is now done?

The Prime Minister: That is not a question for me, but I understand that the particular Amendment to which the hon. Member refers was not called because there was a Government Amendment upon the Paper dealing with the same matter.

Mr. Dingle Foots: Arising out of the last reply but one, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that in recent Bills the method of government by regulation is being carried much further than before?

DEFENCE FORCES (RECRUITMENT).

Sir George Mitcheson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the total number of persons who have joined the Regular and Auxiliary Forces of the Crown in the last three months?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The total number of persons who have joined the Regular, Reserve and Auxiliary Forces of the Crown in the last three months is approximately 236,000.

MACHINE TOOLS (COSTING).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) whether he can now give a report on the consultations that took place between the last Minister for the Co-ordination of De-fence and the representatives of the Machine Tool Trades Manufacturers Association;
(2) whether he can now make a full report on his negotiations with the Machine Tool Trades Association?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Negotiations in regard to the costing of machine tools supplied by makers in this country for the purposes of the Defence programme have


been in progress for a considerable time. In the result, the Machine Tool Trades Association agreed on behalf of their members that a discount of 5 per cent. should be given on all standard machine tools delivered for the purposes of the programme after 5th December, 1938, and that, in the case of non-standard machine tools, prices shall, if the Government so desire, be fixed after costs have been investigated by Government accountants. The prices ruling on 5th December, 1938, are to hold good for one year, and provision has been made for revision where necessary due to upward or downward movements in basic costs, such as that of pig iron. It has also been agreed that individual members of the association may approach the Government with a view to modification of the agreement in cases where they consider hardship would result from its application. It has, of course, been made clear to the association that the arrangement has been accepted without prejudice to any legislative powers which may be conferred on the Government in future. Throughout the negotiations close touch has been maintained with the Departments concerned, and the assistance and advice of the Prime Minister's Advisory Panel of Industrialists has also been readily given.

Mr. Alexander: What was the date of that arrangement in regard to 5 per cent. and the date from which it will operate?

Mr. Morrison: I have not the exact date, but it was quite recent.

Mr. Kirk wood: In the reply, the right hon. Gentleman stated that they were guided by the advice of the Prime Minister's committee of industrialists. May I point out that those industrialists are there to look after the interests of those other industrialists; and, when it comes to the question of the engineers in relation to their demand for another 10s. per week, will the Prime Minister consult a representative of the working engineers?

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the average rate of profit that the Machine Tool Trades Association desired on contracts; what was the amount proposed by the Government; and what arrangement has been in existence since the matter was reported to the Public Accounts Committee?

Mr. Morrison: Machine tools have hitherto been generally obtained by the Service Departments on the ordinary basis of competitive tendering. The question of a rate of profit does not arise in such cases. I have explained in my previous answer the result of the negotiations with the Machine Tool Trades Association.

Mr. Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman consult the Minister of Supply with a view to taking notice of the evidence that was given before the Royal Commission upon the Private Manufacture of Armaments?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alexander: Does the method of giving orders on a basis of competitive tender mean ordering both English-produced machine tools and the foreign machine tools which enter into competition; and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any orders have been given on a cost basis and not a tender basis?

Mr. Morrison: In regard to the machine tools, no orders have been given on a cost basis. The Department asks for tenders from several firms at the same time and compares prices of each tender with the comparable article imported.

WHEAT (MILLING FACILITIES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps the Government are taking to reopen and re-equip those mills in rural areas scattered over the country which were shut down and dismantled as the result of the rationalisation scheme carried out by the big millers, since the security stocks of wheat held by the Government would be unusable as human food unless ground into flour and since practically the whole facilities for grinding wheat are now centred in some half-dozen of the great ports?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The distribution of milling facilities among the ports is very much wider than is suggested in the last part of the question, and a substantial proportion of the total milling capacity of the country (which is still considerably in excess of. peace-time requirements) is dispersed among the inland towns. In


the circumstances it is not considered necessary to take such steps as are suggested in the first part of the question.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand that the Government will take no action in this matter? Are they aware that many milling combines have deliberately closed down mills in the rural areas; and is there no one in the Government who has the courage to take action in this matter?

Mr. Morrison: The general trend of the answer was that the position was very much exaggerated in the question.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I will not sit still and see this racket continue?

AIR DISARMAMENT (INQUIRY).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, in view of the increasing apprehension of the incidence of aerial warfare, he will make a statement respecting the inter-Departmental inquiry in regard to the control of civil aviation; when the members of that inquiry last met; how often they have met in the last year; and whether any consultations with the Governments of other Powers have taken place in recent months concerning the possibility of preventing the misuse of civil aviation for military purposes?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As I informed the hon. Member on 27th February last, the question of the control of civil aviation in relation to its misuse for military purposes forms one of the matters which is under consideration by the Inter-Departmental Inquiry on Air Disarmament. Pending a decision on the problem as a whole, which is clearly one of great complexity, I am not in a position to make a statement regarding one part of it. Three meetings of the full Committee conducting the inquiry have been held in the last year and a great deal of work has been carried out by a number of sub-committees and by departmental investigations. The hon. Member will no doubt appreciate that owing to the events of recent months the staffs concerned have been preoccupied with matters of active defence and have been unable to devote as much time to this problem as they would otherwise have

done. No approach on the matter has been made in recent months to the Governments of other Powers.

Mr. Sorensen: When is some report likely to be made in regard to this inquiry; and can we have an assurance that at least as much active attention will be paid to preparing for peace as is now being paid to preparing for war?

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Member that the inquiry will be actively pursued, and that there will be no avoidable delay in bringing it to a conclusion.

BRITISH GUIANA.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in order to encourage the colonisation of British Guiana, he will cause an invitation under the auspices of the Crown Agents to be issued to the British investing public to form a joint stock enterprise designed to provide the capital required for developing the natural resources of the interior of British Guiana, under a trading charter granted and controlled by Parliament?

Sir T. Inskip: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said in reply to a question on 7th June, pending the receipt of proposals which are now under consideration by the appropriate Refugee Organisations for the settlement of refugees in British Guiana, His Majesty's Government do not feel able to consider any other schemes for settlement within the Colony.

CYPRUS (PRESS CENSORSHIP).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the reason for the renewed censorship upon Cyprus newspapers and the banning of the publication of political news; and if he will cause these restrictions to be removed?

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information about the recent restrictions placed on the Press in Cyprus?

Sir T. Inskip: Last month, one newspaper, which had appeared for the first time, was suppressed. Apart from this case, no newspaper in Cyprus has, as far


as I am aware, been placed under censorship since the removal last February of the censorship on the "Embros." The Acting Governor reported, however, that he took a serious view of the recent newspaper agitation, and the communication made to the editors of certain newspapers was designed to meet that situation. My right hon. Friend intends to review the whole matter, and I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. Mathers: Are we to understand, from the Minister's statement, that the calling together of the editors of Cyprus newspapers, and the instructions given to them that they must not publish political news, even though it had appeared in this country previously, is not to be considered as censorship? That is how I read the answer, and surely a position like that is one that should not prevail in a British colony?

Sir T. Inskip: As I have said, my right hon. Friend is reviewing the whole matter. The editors of six or seven newspapers were called together in order to hear the views of the Acting Governor, who made certain requests to them.

Mr. Paling: If a censorship has not been in force for some time, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the Governor the undesirability of calling such a conference to put what is virtually a censorship into operation although formally it may have been lifted?

Sir T. Inskip: I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Member has said.

Captain A. Graham: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the entirely irresponsible attitude of the Cypriot Greek Press, and their very inflammatory articles, call for a measure of censorship?

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause to be placed in the Library, for the information of Members, the article on "Freedom of the Press" following which the censorship was placed on the newspaper "Embros," so that Members may see for themselves the grounds on which the censorship was imposed?

Sir T Inskip: I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that suggestion, but I am not sure that the hon. Member is right in speaking of the article he has in mind as the reason for the censorship.

Mr. Foot: Is it not a fact that the censorship was imposed the day after the article appeared?

SIERRA LEONE (ORDINANCES).

Mr. Paling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the four Bills to be dealt with by the Legislative Council of Sierra Leone during the present session, namely, the Incitement to Disaffection Ordinance, the Sedition Ordinance, the Deportation Ordinance, and the Undesirable Literature Ordinance have been submitted to him for his consideration and, if so, with what result?

Sir T. Inskip: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Incitement to Disaffection Ordinance, the Sedition Ordinance and the Undesirable Publications Ordinance have been passed by the Legislative Council. My right hon. Friend is at present in communication with the Governor on certain points relating to the Deportation Bill, which is to be debated again on 20th June.

Mr. Paling: In view of the trouble that has occurred in the West Indies, arising largely out of suppression of this kind, when are the Government going to learn that there are better ways of dealing with these troubles and the poverty of the natives than by trying to suppress them; and when will they be inclined to give the natives the same rights as we have in this country?

Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of the suspension of Habeas Corpus contained in the Deportation Ordinance?

Sir T. Inskip: I was not asked to express an opinion on that question; I was asked whether these Ordinances had been submitted to my right hon. Friend for consideration.

Mr. Maxton: Was this legislation initiated in Sierra Leone, or by the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself?

Sir T. Inskip: It was initiated in Sierra Leone, and certain models were submitted to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. A. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Ethiopian News," a paper printed and published in this country, has been placed upon the banned list?

Sir T. Inskip: I was not aware of that particular paper.

Mr. Riley: In view of the feeling with regard to these Ordinances, will the right hon. Gentleman have copies of them placed in the Library?

Sir T. Inskip: I have no doubt that these Ordinances will be available in the ordinary way as soon as they are passed.

Mr. Leach: Is Sierra Leone a totalitarian State?

Mr. Stephen: Is it not necessary that the House should see them before they are passed?

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, GOUROCK.

Mr. R. Gibson: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any statement to make regarding the accident which occurred at Gourock on the night of 12th June?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Euan Wallace): The 6.0 p.m. passenger train from Gourock to Glasgow wrongly entered a siding shortly after leaving Gourock Station, and collided with a buffer stop. I regret to say that four passengers were injured, but I am glad to be able to add that in no case were the injuries more than slight.

Mr. Gibson: Will the Minister keep in mind the fact that this is the third accident that has happened at that spot during the last 18 months; and will he make sure that rigorous steps are taken to make

this place safe before the opening of the holiday season next month?

Captain Wallace: The railway company have promised to give me a full report on the subject. I will certainly take into consideration what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Mr. Davidson: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is to be a Communist march in Gourock?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister what Orders he proposes to take to-night in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o' Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: The Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o' Clock Rule is being moved for the purpose of obtaining the Report and Third Reading of the Civil Defence Bill and the Committee stage of the Air-Raid Precautionary Services Estimate. I hope it will be possible to obtain the Third Reading of the Civil Defence Bill at a time which will allow reasonable opportunity before Eleven o' Clock for the consideration of the Air-Raid Precautionary Services Estimate.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." — [The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 123.

Division No. 172.]
AYES.
3.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Davidson, Viscountess


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Davison, Sir W. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Carver, Major W. H.
De la Bèere, R.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cary, R. A.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Denville, Alfred


Assheton. R.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Doland, G. F.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Donner, P. W.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Channon, H.
Drewe, C.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Duggan, H. J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Beechman, N. A.
Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Dunglass, Lord


Bird, Sir R. B.
Colman, N. C. D.
Eckersley, P. T.


Blair, Sir R.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Boulton, W. W.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cock, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Evans, D O. (Cardigan)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Everard, Sir William Lindsay


Bull, B. B.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Fildes, Sir H.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Fleming, E. L.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Foot, D. M.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Crowder, J. F. E.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Culverwell, C. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.




Gluckstein, L. H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Magnay, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Granville, E. L.
Mander, G. le M.
Sandys, E. D.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Selley, H. R.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Markham, S. F.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Medlicott, F.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hambro, A. V.
Mellar, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Hannah, I. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Harbord, Sir A.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Snadden, W. McN.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Moreing, A. C.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Hepworth, J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish (Univ's.)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Higgs, W. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Holdsworth, H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Holmes, J. S.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Storey, S.


Hopkinson, A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Owen, Major G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Patrick, C. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hunter, T.
Peake, O.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Hutchinson, G. C.
Peat, C. U.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Jennings, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Joel, D. J. B.
Pilkington, R.
Touche, G. C.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Keeling, E. H.
Radford, E. A.
Turton, R. H.


Kellett, Major E. O.
Ramsbotham, Rt. Hon. H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Rankin, Sir R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Warrender, Sir V.


Lees-Jones, J.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Leech, Sir J. W.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
White, H. Graham


Lewis, O.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Liddall, W. S.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Lindsay, K. M.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Lipson, D. L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Little, J.
Rowlands, G.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
York, C.


Loftus, P. C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.



Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES, —


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Captain Waterhouse and


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Salmon, Sir I.
Mr. Munro


Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Salt, E. W.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Dobbie, W.
Isaacs, G. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jagger, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Ede, J. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Ammon, C. G.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Banfield, J. W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Barnes, A. J.
Frankel, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Bellenger, F. J.
Gallacher, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Kirby, B. V.


Benson, G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Kirkwood, D.


Bevan, A.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Broad, F. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lathan, G.


Bromfield, W.
Grenfall, D R.
Leach, W


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Lee, F.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Leonard, W.


Cape, T.
Groves, T. E.
Leslie, J. R.


Chater, D.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Logan, D. G.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Lunn, W.


Collindridge, F.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Cove, W. G.
Hardie, Agnes
McEntee, V. La T.


Daggar, G.
Hayday, A.
McGhee, H. G.


Dalton, H.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
McGovern, J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
MacLaren, A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Maclean, N.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hills, D. (Pontefract)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Day, H.
Hopkin, D.
Marshall, F.







Maxton, J.
Sanders, W. S.
Tinker, J. J.


Messer, F.
Sexton, T. M.
Viant, S. P.


Montague, F.
Shinwell, E.
Walkden, A. G.


Mormon, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Silkin, L.
Walker, J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Silverman, S. S.
Watkins, F. J,


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Sloan, A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon, J. C.


Paling, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Westwood, J.


Parker, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Parkinson, J. A.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Pearson, A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wilmot, J.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Poole, C. C.
Stephen, C.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ridley, G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith



Riley, B.
Thorne, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Thurtle, E.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the borough of Bootle; to confer further powers on the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the said borough with regard to the health improvement, good government and finance of the borough; to provide for the constitution of the Rimrose Brook Joint Sewerage Board; to authorise the purchase of the Church of Saint John in the borough by the Corporation and the application of the purchase money to the erection of a new church in substitution there for; and for other purposes." [Bootle Corporation Bill [Lords]

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.

As amended (in Committee and on re-committal), further considered.

Clause 63. —(Compensation in the event of injury to persons engaged in air-raid precautions activities.)

3.59 P.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, in page 56, line 27, to leave out from the first "person," to "being," in line 28, and to insert:
by any person (including a local authority) who has any responsibility in connection with the training or exercising of the injured person, or by any person who is.
This Amendment is nothing but drafting. As the Clause stands, it relates to
any person who is training or exercising.
In point of fact, we know that those who are responsible for training and exercising are local authorities; but we are advised that we must make the wording more definite.

Mr. George Griffiths: I would like to know whether local authorities are to be responsible in any way for any person injured or for any fatal accident. I ask whether the local authorities are to be burdened with any finance from the compensation standpoint.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he has asked. I have understood that the negotiations between the local authorities and the Lord Privy Seal on this Clause were designed to lift the whole of the responsibility for compensation off the shoulders of the local authorities and to place it on the Government. Although the wording here is somewhat obscure I understand that that is the intention of both sides, that the whole of the liability is taken off the shoulders of the local authorities, and that in the case of all persons who voluntarily give instruction on behalf of the local authorities the liability is to be borne by the Treasury.

Captain Crookshank: The answer is that the scheme covers all volunteers. There is, however, a possibility of certain borderline cases which still have to be

explored. There is, for instance, the case of the instructor who receives a small fee. Those concerned with the negotiations were aware of such cases. But, of course, it has to be remembered that, in the case of a full-time instructor of the local authority, he is covered by his ordinary conditions of employment, and he has nothing to do with this scheme at all.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: This scheme we discussed last night, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated repeatedly that it is a better scheme than the present compensation Act. If an employé of a local authority meets with an accident whilst he is performing A.R.P. duty, the Financial Secretary says that that employé will not get this better compensation although he is working under A.R.P. The Act states that 30s. is the maximum, but under this 2nd March scale there would be a better payment. Surely it is not suggested that a man working in connection with A.R.P. is to be paid a lower scale of compensation by law compared with another man, a voluntary worker, who is to get the higher compensation, even though they both meet with accidents at the same time?

Captain Crookshank: Those are just the cases that do fall to be discussed still further. They are the borderline cases. If a man is employed as a full-time instructor by a local authority and that is his regular employment, he does not, as such, come within the scheme, because the scheme is meant to deal mainly with voluntary workers. The full-time man used for this purpose and only for this purpose will come under the general employment conditions under which he is engaged by the local authority. But there may be cases— for example, the case of a full-time employé of a local authority, who is giving instruction outside his regular duties— which will come within the borderline description which still remains to be solved.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Really the answer of the Minister is so contradictory of what was stated in the conversations referred to, that I appeal to him to make the position clearer. I would point out that the


first persons to whom this scheme applies are set out in Sub-section (1, a) of the Clause and in Sub-sections (1, b) and (1, c.) In Sub-section (1, a) there is reference to "being trained or exercised or of training or exercising others." Those may be persons employed by the local authority. They may be volunteers or they may be persons receiving a fee for giving lectures or courses, for instance a non-municipal doctor giving a course of first-aid lectures. I understand that whether those persons are employed by the local authority or not, they come within the scheme. They may be employed. Then in Sub-section (1, b) we find the words:
or being trained in nursing in pursuance of arrangements made by the Minister of Health.
They may be employed by the local authority or they may not. In Subsection (I, c) there is reference to persons
acting in a voluntary capacity on behalf of a local authority,
and they may include an employé of the local authority who at the moment was not acting as an employéof the authority but was acting in a voluntary capacity. The Lord Privy Seal will recollect that at the conference to which reference has been made we had the case of a town clerk brought in evidence, because there were more town clerks present than other persons. It was suggested that if a town clerk was dictating a letter in the ordinary course of his duty he would not come under the scheme, but if the town clerk was acting as an air-raid warden or in some other A.R.P. capacity, he would come under the scheme because he was not then acting in the course of his ordinary civilian employment. But certainly under Sub-sections (1, a) and (1, b) persons who are employés of a local authority and are engaged on this work are brought within the scheme and are taken outside the ordinary compensation law. That was the understanding at the conference. To-day we hear with some consternation that the Financial Secretary and the Treasury are taking a different view.

4.8 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has made reference to discussions in which I have taken part, it might be an advantage if, purely for

the purpose of trying to remove any possibility of misunderstanding, I say a few words. The House should realise that the main object of this scheme is to provide a form of compensation for volunteers. It was for that purpose primarily, and for no other, that the Clause was framed. The Government realised the unsatisfactory position that exists now in regard to the provision of compensation for members of the Civil Defence services, most deserving persons, as was said yesterday, because they have offered themselves voluntarily but as members of the Civil Defence services have at present no claim whatever against the Government, and may have no rights whatever to compensation under any existing scheme. In certain cases they are dealt with at present under policies of insurance that have been taken out by the local authorities concerned; but there is no sort of uniformity, and even where there are policies making provision for compensation those policies are in many respects unsatisfactory.
The Government came to the conclusion that it would be a good thing that the compensation of all these volunteers should be cleared up in one comprehensive scheme, and they decided in the public interest to take upon the Exchequer a liability which had not previously existed at all—that the Exchequer would be solely responsible for the provision of compensation for all these volunteers. When we came to frame the Clause it became clear that certain anomalies might arise. You might have the case referred to yesterday, of a regular employé of a local authority who was doing work in connection with Civil Defence and there might be some doubt as to whether he was doing that in his capacity as a regular employé of the local authority or as a volunteer; and it was realised that it might be very unsatisfactory if such a person were liable to be treated less favourably, in respect of an injury received, than the volunteer. There was also the case of the regular full-time employé of a local authority who in the course of his duties for the local authority was taking some part in the organisation of Civil Defence services, training or whatever it may be. As regards that person it was clear that nothing we might do under the Clause, if it were extended beyond the volunteer for whom it was primarily intended, ought to have the


effect of depriving that person of any rights he might have by virtue of his employment. Therefore words were inserted in the Clause to deal with the matter.
I would here call attention to one point. When reference is made to persons to whom the Clause applies what is really meant is persons to whom the scheme applies. This Clause was so drawn that the scheme might apply, not only to volunteers, but to persons other than volunteers who were being trained or exercised or were engaged in training or exercising others in respect of air-raid precautions. That is the reason why Sub-section (1) (a) of the Clause is not limited to volunteers. But it will be a matter for the scheme to determine how those borderline cases should be treated, and we intend, subject to the general principles that I have indicated, to make quite clear in the wording of the scheme who come within the scheme and who come outside the scheme. It is difficult to say in advance exactly what borderline cases may arise, but I think I am right in stating that as the Clause is drawn a scheme can be framed which will clear up all those points. In conference with the associations of local authorities I gave an assurance that the contents of the scheme would be the subject of the fullest consultation, so that we might be able to clear up all these matters satisfactorily. I hope that what I have said may have contributed to an elucidation of the purpose of this Clause and will have removed any possible misapprehensions.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: There is one small point on which I would like the attention of the Lord Privy Seal. He has just said that the scheme will decide who shall be within the scheme and who shall be outside. But if we look at Sub-section (4), which deprives people of their rights at common law, we see that that Sub-section applies to any injury to which the Clause applies. That is to say, the courts are ousted. A man loses his rights at common law, a widow loses her rights, in any case to which the Clause applies. But it may well be that the scheme will be narrower than the Clause. You might have an intermediate class of persons who would receive an injury to which the Clause applies and who may be none the

less outside the scheme. May I have an assurance that it is not the intention of the Goverment that that shall take place?

4.14p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I am not going to enter into a legal discussion with my hon. Friend. Sub-section (1) provides that the Clause applies to injuries as defined, being injuries sustained in time of peace by such persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in the scheme. I adhere to what I said before, that it was the intention, in drafting this Clause, that we should be placed in a position to avoid all possibility of doubt as to how particular individuals were to be dealt with. If the Clause fails to carry out that purpose it will have to be looked at again, but I am clear as to what the intention was.

4.15p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I would like a definite answer to this question. If an employéof a local authority, after he has finished his day's work for that authority, should meet with an accident when practising on A.R.P. work, or giving instructions to somebody else, will he be paid compensation under the new scheme, or will he be given compensation under the old scheme?

Sir J. Anderson: The intention is that certainly in that case he would be paid under the new scheme.

Mr. Mainwaring: Let us assume that two persons are involved in an accident and that one of them is in this scheme and the other is outside it, the one will be limited in his claim for compensation to this scheme, and the other will have to proceed by common law against somebody. Obviously, the two persons involved in the accident in this case will not have the same measure of compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has asked whether he might substitute a manuscript Amendment for the Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper— in page 56, line 31, leave out "includes," and insert "shall not include." The Amendment on the Paper and the manuscript Amendment relate to a principle which was very largely dealt with in his Amendment last night, to leave out Sub-section (4), and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not


take up the time of the House by using the same arguments of which he made use on that particular Amendment.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 56, line 31, at the end, to insert:
Provided that if the personal injury results in death, Sub-section (4) shall not apply.
I will endeavour to bear your instructions in mind, Mr. Speaker. The House will see that Sub-section (4) deprives anyone who comes under this scheme of any rights at common law against his employer or of any rights under the Workmen's Compensation or Employers' Liability Acts. We ought to have a little more explanation of these provisions than was given by the Financial Secretary last night, particularly in case of fatal cases, which is the subject with which my manuscript Amendment deals. It is a very serious matter to deprive an injured man at any time of the damages that are due to him under the ordinary law, but in many cases it will be even a more serious matter to deprive a widow and orphans of the amount which is due to them under the common law. That is what is sought to be done by this Clause. I only want to refer in passing to Sub-section (4). I am trying to exclude its operation in fatal cases. Sub-section (4) excludes an action against an employer or local authority at common law. Action can only be brought against the employer if the employer has been negligent. I cannot see why a claim should be put up whereby the employer is to be relieved from the result of his own negligence and the National Exchequer is to take the burden instead.
I want to refer, in particular, to the scheme that was announced on 2nd March. That refers at some length to the compensation that is to be paid in cases of death. The first category of persons is that of members of A.R.P. services other than auxiliary firemen, and it is provided that in case of death the payment shall be £600 to a widow with dependent child or children, and in the case of an auxiliary fireman there is a rather higher scale, and it is provided that the maximum payment shall be £1,000 to a widow with dependent child or children. Of course, the amounts are rather less where there are no children. Supposing a man who is performing

A.R.P. duties is killed in circumstances which normally would give his widow the right of action, it may well be that she would be able to obtain very substantial damages indeed. She might get £2,000 or £3,000, or possibly even a greater amount, but, as a result of the provisions of this Clause, she will lose her claim to £2,000 or £3,000, or whatever amount the court would award, and is to be limited to £600. That is a perfectly scandalous provision to put into any Bill, and it is a monstrous thing that any Minister should stand up at that Box in order to defend it.
The only substantial reply of the Minister, when we considered Subsection (4), was that he wanted to avoid duplication in this matter. He did not want people to be paid compensation in some other way, and also compensation under this scheme. If he wanted to do that it would be a simple matter to have some such provision as there is in workmen's compensation cases to allow a man to recover his rights at common law. It would be a simple matter to have some thing like that here, where for the first time we are saying that not only injured people, but their dependants in cases where they are killed, are to be deprived of their legal rights. It is interesting to see this Star Chamber mentality upon the Front Bench. The thing is quite indefensible when dealing with injured workmen, and it is still more indefensible when dealing with the case of widows and orphan children.

Mr. Graham White: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.23 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I had not had an opportunity of considering the manuscript Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) until a few moments ago. It seems to me that its purpose is to revive in a slightly altered form the subject of the discussion on the Amendment last night. Quite frankly, I do not appreciate the grounds for the heat with which he presented his arguments in favour of his Amendment. Under this Bill, in which, as the hon. Member said last night, we are breaking new ground, there is being brought into being a new form of public service affecting a very large section of the population, and entailing the possibility,


of personal injuries or death to those who are engaged upon it. In that situation, the underlying purpose of this Clause is to provide that, if injury or death follows, the fact that injury or death has happened will itself be a title to payment from the Treasury. There will be no necessity to prove that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, or to establish the conditions required for the claim under the Employers' Liability Act, or to establish the far harder conditions required before an award of damages can be obtained from a jury at common law.
The hon. Member spoke rather on the lines as if, when an accident happened, the right to damages was more or less automatic. No one ought to know better than he does, or than I do, that there is a whole series of obstacles to be overcome particularly in common law claims before you can establish, in the first place, your legal right to anything at all, and, in the second place, before you can get a verdict from the jury for a substantial sum. All that is required under the common law, to a lesser extent in employers' liability claims, and probably to a still lesser extent in workmen's compensation claims. Everybody knows how often the employé's claim fails, and in how many claims the rights of the workman disappear. In the place of all these questionable and doubtful claims which may arise, there is substituted here what one might describe as a vested right to a payment under the scheme of the Treasury, whenever injury or death has been sustained in circumstances outlined in the Clause, and subsequently elaborated in detail in the scheme. In that situation, is it not right that there should be a provision that the persons who engage in his new form of public service, with this new privilege, should be told that they cannot have the ordinary rights such as they are at common law; or under the existing statutes, and if Subsection (4) were not to apply in the case of death, that they were not entitled to get the thing twice over.
The hon. Member will appreciate that It is possible in certain circumstances that the dependants, the widow and orphans, might get paid under the Treasury scheme, and might at once start an action for damages at common law

against the local authority and get a verdict from the jury. I hope that hon. Members will disabuse their minds of the assumption which seems to underlie a great deal of the argument on this Clause, that claims for damages or rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act will easily or readily arise in relation to the types of cases specified in the first Sub-section of this Clause. I cannot foresee all the types of cases that will arise, but in the vast majority of the cases that I can envisage, I doubt very much whether the common law or the Workmen's Compensation Act claim would arise.

Mr. Foot: Is that a reason for depriving people in the few cases in which it would arise?

The Lord Advocate: I think it is. The whole purpose of the Clause and the necessity for avoiding duplication are equally obvious, and I submit that there is no justification for the Amendment, the effect of which would be, in the case of death, to say to the dependants or other parties who might have the right to claim, "You can, if you are able to do so, recover damages at common law or compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Employers' Liability Act, or you can also recover under this automatic scheme which is envisaged." I accordingly submit, for the reasons more fully urged last night, and for these further reasons, that the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Stephen: The Lord Advocate has not dealt with the possibility of a person having the right of election as to which remedy he should take.

The Lord Advocate: The whole purpose of the Clause as drafted is to preclude the election, and to say as far as this new type of service is concerned, "Here is a new right which takes the place of such rights which might have arisen independently."

4.30 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not really met the point. In the latter part of his speech he introduced the old traditional argument that the problem is only a small one as regards the number of people affected. That does not deal with the problem. The fact that only a few people are likely to be affected does not make it any the less necessary to see that those few people


have justice. Nor has he met the position in what he said about election. There are many cases where new remedies have been given where there have been other remedies available in some of the cases. The procedure in regard to that type of case is that when a new remedy is given election is allowed to the persons as to which of the remedies they choose to assert, either the new remedy or the pre-existing old remedy.
Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman says: "Look how simple all this is, instead of the complexity of damages at common law and compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Here is an automatic thing." Is it automatic? I am afraid that he has never tried to get money out of the Treasury. If he thinks that is automatic, I am sorry for his idea of automaticity. We do not know the details of the scheme, and until we know the details how can we judge of the ease with which this compensation can be claimed? It may be more difficult than under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There may be far more rigorous regulations. What is to happen if a claim is put forward and the Treasury refuse to pay? What form of appeal is to be introduced? Is it to be arbitration? If it is to be arbitration, is there to be an appeal to the courts, as there is in arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act? Are we to have exactly the same procedure as under the Workmen's Compensation Act, although with perhaps more difficult and more rigorous regulations?
It is impossible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Government have substituted for these difficult and complex procedures which exist to-day an automatic way of going to the box office and drawing your money. Obviously, that cannot possibly be the situation. The injury will have to be proved. It will have to be proved that the injury occurred in the course of the training or in the course of operations under air-raid precautions. All these things will have to be proved just as much as they have to be proved in any other case, and they will have to be proved before a body which is much more difficult to deal with than any insurance company, or any ordinary employer, or any other person. I admit that the remedy you are offering covers a lot of

people who would not be covered otherwise, and therefore it is valuable, but that is no argument for depriving people of remedies to which they are at this moment entitled and would continue to be entitled, even if they happened to be engaged in air-raid precautions work? Why should the widows be deprived of the rights which now exist?
There is a good argument in favour of election, that they should not be allowed to claim both the benefits of the old remedy and the benefits of the new remedy. That has always been dealt with in the past by saying that they must elect which remedy they will choose. It is obvious if it is a case of death, where there is a duplicate remedy, that the amount that can be recovered under the old remedy may be very much larger than the amount under the new remedy. Under this Clause you will be depriving some people, literally, of thousands of pounds, and you will be substituting payment of a few hundreds of pounds. In other words, they might under the common law at the present time secure payment of thousands of pounds, whereas under this scheme they would get hundreds. There is no justification, unless you are altering the whole law in regard to accidents— which nobody suggests— for the suggestion that because people have given this particular service to the State you should put them in a worse position than people who have not given such service. The reward that you are offering to people who are giving their service in this way is that they will be worse off than the people who do not give that service.
We are told that it is much easier to make the scheme uniform, but that is no argument for taking away people's rights. Whether the words of the Amendment fit the position or not, this matter can be dealt with in a perfectly simple way by putting in election, as there is now in the case of workmen's compensation at common law. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give way in this case, which is the only fair thing to do in the circumstances. I am certain that he does not want people who are asked to give their service to the State in this way to be told: "Yes, but if you do so your widow will be worse off than if you had not given your service."

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I beg the Lord Privy Seal to take some steps to meet the Amendment. I do not think that he can really appreciate the rights that he is taking away from these men, women, boys and girls who are volunteering their services for the State. At the present time if a man is killed the widow may have rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act, or she may sue under Lord Campbell's Act for loss of prospective pecuniary benefits from her husband, or she has rights under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act. All these rights are being swept away. If her husband had lived a little time after the accident she would have been able to claim damages for the pain and suffering to which he had been subjected, and she would be able to claim for loss of expectation of life That alone in many cases might amount to the maximum sum which they are to be paid under this scheme. In these circumstances it seems to me an astonishing thing that the Government should come forward with a plan of this sort and deprive these people of their ordinary common law rights. I listened to the Lord Advocate, and I was certainly glad to hear a Law Officer on this matter. What he said confirms me in my view. When he rose I felt that every point that could be put in support of the Government's proposal, would be put. What did we get from him? We got a statement that negligence claims would be difficult to prove. What has that to do with it? It does no matter how difficult it may be to prove a claim, the point is that rights should not be taken away. Let us assume, as we must assume, that in a number of cases persons have good claims which they can prove. In those circumstances, are the Government going to take away their rights? The Lord Advocate says that there may not be very many of these cases. Again, what has that to do with it? Finally, we had the suggestion that it is to be beautifully uniform. The only uniformity is to be uniform injustice. I do not want to be harsh about this matter but I beg the Lord Privy Seal to reconsider it and see whether he cannot do something to remedy the injustice.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I should like to add my voice to the appeal that has been made to the Government to reconsider their position in this matter.

The only argument that did seem to impress one at first sight in the Lord Advocate's statement of the case was that it was most important that we should avoid giving a duplicate right to individuals. There is however no need for this to arise. In Sub-section (2) without any alteration of the wording it will be seen that ample powers exist to provide in the scheme that the Government's proposals should not apply in the case of those persons who elect to use instead any of the various methods outlined by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Thorneycroft). That would make it quite clear that it is in the hands of the Government under the terms of the Bill to avoid duplication of compensation and to insist on election. That seems to remove the one serious argument that has been addressed to the House by the Lord Advocate, and leaves the House face to face with the fact that if we pass the Bill in its present form, without some such Amendment as that suggested by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), we are taking away rights under the common law from people who really need those rights. By so doing we shall be committing a very serious injustice, it may be to a limited number of people, but persons whose case calls for the deep sympathy of every Member of this House.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I should like to give two practical instances in order to throw a little light, I hope, on how this thing would work. Something has been said as to the amount involved. With regard to that point I should like to quote a case in my own experience and in the experience of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). It was a case fought in the courts and up to the highest court. The; question was whether a widow was entitled to damages at common law or whether she must be content with what she would be entitled to under the Workmen's Compensation Act. At common law the amount awarded was over £2,500, and under the Workmen's Compensation Act she would have been entitled to a sum round about £400. The difference involved in these cases can be as great as that. Suppose that had been a case within this Clause and the claim had been under the scheme, and suppose we agree that the scheme would be no less favourable to the widow


than a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The scheme would have cost her, by depriving her of her right at common law, assuming that she had one, no less a sum than £2,000. I do not think the House would readily agree to take that right from the widow unless very sound and adequate reasons were given for it, and I do not think that we have heard any such reasons.
The other practical instance that I should like to give concerns the suggestion that it is much better to have a kind of automatic claim under the scheme. I think I have a case which is closely analogous to that. It will be remembered that under the Ministry of Labour arrangement there are certain training centres for young people, where they work very much as they would work in a workshop or a factory. It has been held, certainly the Ministry of Labour holds, that the Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply, and that where injuries arise out of and in the course of a period of training of that kind, as there is no contract of service between the Ministry or the head of the training establishment and the trainee, there can be no question of a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act; but the Ministry of Labour say: "Although we do not recognise that the Workmen's Compensation Act applies, we are prepared to deal with these cases in a manner similar to that under which they would be dealt with in the county court under Workmen's Compensation legislation.
Let us see how that works out. In a case with which I had to deal a boy of 18 lost an eye. When we asked that that case should be dealt with under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Department said:" We cannot admit that the workmen's compensation legislation applies, but we want to be reasonable and to do the fair and proper thing." We began to discuss to see what was the fair and proper thing in the case of the loss of an eye for a working youth at the age of 18. The House will not be surprised to learn that we differed, we could not agree, and I suggested to the Minister that we should arbitrate the case in some way under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will realise that this Amendment deals with one particular point, that is the case of death, and we should confine ourselves to

arguments in regard to these matters in the case of death, and not in the case of accidents.

Mr. Silverman: The only reason for which I cited the case was to show the effect of having a scheme administered by a Government Department with no recourse to the courts, and although the question with which I am dealing is not one of death, obviously the same principles apply. It was simply a deprivation of the claimant of any right to a third party hearing. Looked at in that way I think I am within the rules of order. I suggested to the Department that we might agree upon some form of third party judgment. It may be that the Workmen's Compensation Act did not apply; never mind, let us agree upon a lump sum, and then both parties go to the registrar of the county court and ask him to say under the legislation whether the sum was appropriate. I suggested to the Department that we might voluntarily agree to some arbitration of that kind without their admitting any liability under the Act at all. They said "No. We are going to be the judges ourselves. You have no right to go to the courts. We are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, and we absolutely decline to go outside at all. You are to negotiate with us, and you either have to take what we give or you get nothing."
That kind of Hobson's choice resulted in our being compelled to settle a claim for the loss of an eye for a very miserable sum, a far less sum I assert than the registrar of the county court would have been content to pass if he had had jurisdiction under the Act. The same thing would have happened if the youth had died. Under this scheme is there to be any third party judgment, or is the Treasury to be the judge in their own case? Are they to act as the Minister of Pensions habitually acts? Where any dispute arises the Department says, "We have referred the matter to our own medical advisers, to our own assessors, who are part of the permanent staff and if you are not content with that you must lump it." I doubt whether the House and the country will be content with that, and I doubt whether the Lord Advocate really believes that the House should accept any such proposal.

4.50 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: This matter has been discussed so far from the legal point of view, and I should now like to put to the House another point of view. I look upon this matter from the point of view of one who is responsible for the organisation and the administration of a great new service, and from that point of view it is of the greatest importance that the terms and conditions under which the members of that service will work should be clear-cut and clearly defined, and that we should eliminate as far as possible any element of speculation or uncertainty. That is the position in regard to the auxiliary fighting services, in regard to those volunteers who have come forward and offered themselves for the Territorial Army and other services-— in those services there is no question of workmen's compensation. Their compensation is dealt with under a scheme settled by His Majesty's Government subject to the control of this House. I, as primarily responsible for this great new Civil Defence service, am as deeply interested as anyone in ensuring that the terms upon which people are invited to enter the service should be fair and reasonable, and I tell the House without any hesitation that I should find it quite impossible to apply to members of the Civil Defence service terms of compensation which in a proportion of cases would be indeterminate and uncertain, and would in all cases be wholly different from those terms which are applicable to members of the older auxiliary defence services. There must be a proper relationship maintained in this matter.

Sir S. Cripps: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that in the older services rights are taken away from people?

Sir J. Anderson: I made it quite clear that, in so far as people may have rights in virtue of their employment, the scheme could be so adjusted as to ensure that they are not denied those rights. This scheme is primarily for volunteers, and their case is wholly analogous to that of the volunteers who enter services which are outside the scope of the Clause, the auxiliary defence services. From the point of view of administration I do not share any of the enthusiasm which has been expressed for the system of compensation which has been described, under which persons are left in great uncertainty as to

what their rights may be, and under which the sums which may be awarded as compensation may vary enormously in cases which, to ordinary persons, seem very much the same. That is my own view from the point of view of administration. There is a strong argument in favour of a scheme which operates on uniform lines, and with great respect to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) it will be in the interests of those concerned in the public departments to operate the scheme speedily and fairly.
There is another point of view which I should like to put. We have not here to consider merely the position of these volunteers or His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Government, the Treasury, are not directly concerned in this matter at all. Common law rights, as far as they exist, will be exercisable not against His Majesty's Treasury but against someone else; it may be a local authority, an employer, or another volunteer in the same service. If we are to be successful in our efforts to get this Civil Defence service organised and administered effectively, we ought not to leave local authorities and employers and people who may be in the service as instructors, whether they are volunteers or not, under any sort of undefined liability for the payment of compensation at common law to people who may allege that they have suffered from their negligence. It is definitely our intention to sweep away these uncertainties, and it is from that point of view that the matter has been considered.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: The Government have so far been batting on a sticky wicket and their batsmanship has struck me as not being too good. One of the difficulties in which we are in now is because the scheme which was originally being contemplated, and which found its way surreptitiously into the pages of the Official Report on 2nd March, did not visualise what would appear in the Bill when it was before the House three weeks later. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is a strong man struggling against adversity. He is in a dilemma in which he has placed himself by bringing in new categories of people who were not origin-ally contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between these people and those engaged in the regular


fighting services. There is no comparison whatever. We are dealing here with volunteers.

Sir J. Anderson: I said the auxiliary fighting services.

Mr. Greenwood: I think the right hon. Gentleman said the older fighting services.

Sir J. Anderson: I drew a comparison between members of the Civil Defence service and members of the older auxiliary defence services.

Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman did not make that quite clear, but, in any case, these services are, in fact, fighting services, and the services with which we are now dealing are essentially civilian in character, and, therefore, the analogy does not seem to me to be a good one. I think the view of the House has been largely against the right hon. Gentleman. What argument is there against giving people the right to elect whether they will come under the scheme or retain such rights as they have got? I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I do not see this scheme working so automatically as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. If a person dies as a result of injuries sustained under the conditions referred to in Sub-section (r) is a postcard to be dropped by his widow to the appropriate Department and is she to get a cheque by return? I think there will be the most meticulous examination. There will have to be a one-hundredfold proof, before anyone on behalf of His

Majesty's Treasury parts with a single copper. There will be no greater difficulties or dangers to those people who are injured if they keep their rights rather than come under the beneficent wing of the right hon. Gentleman. I hope the Amendment will receive considerable support from hon. Members opposite. As far as we are concerned we want to see right and justice done to people who, as the result of injuries, die in the pursuit of what are essentially public duties.

I do not think it has been proved to the satisfaction of hon. Members that the proposals in the scheme of 2nd March are to be more expeditiously worked, or will necessarily prove in the long run to be more generous to persons who are bereaved as the result of death arising out of the performance of these duties. I hope, therefore, that we might on this matter, which is entirely non-party, and indeed hardly political, get some rallying support against the Government with a view to their reconsidering a decision arrived at after the original decision was taken. There ought to be none of these border-line cases which have been referred to. It is an injustice to these people to create, when the Bill is printed, a class of border-line cases never contemplated, whose position, and that of other people who may not be border-line cases, may be prejudiced in the future.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 207.

Division No. 173.]
AYES.
[5.2 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Day, H.
Hayday, A.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adamson, W. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Banfield, J. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hicks, E. G.


Barnes, A. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Gallacher, W.
Hollins, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Gardner, B. W.
Hopkin, D.


Benson, G,
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jagger, J.


Bevan, A.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Bromfield, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Buchanan, G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
John, W.


Burke, W. A.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Cape, T.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Charleton, H. C.
Grenfell, D. R.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Cluse, W, S.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Kirby, B. V.


Collindridge, F,
Groves, T. E.
Kirkwood, D.


Cove, W. G.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hall, G. H. (Abardare)
Lathan, G.


Daggar, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Leach, W.


Dalton, H.
Hardie, Agnes
Lee, F.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Leonard, W.


Davies, S. o. (Merthyr)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Leslie, J. R.




Logan, D. G.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Lunn, W.
Poole, C. C.
Stephen, C.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Pritt, D. N.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


McEntee, V. La T.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


MacLaren, A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Maclean, N.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Thorne, W.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ridley, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Mander, G. le M.
Riley, B.
Viant, S. P.


Marshall, F.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Walkden, A. G.


Mathers, G.
Robinson, W. A. (SI. Helens)
Walker, J.


Maxton, J.
Sanders, W. S.
Watkins, F. C.


Masser, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Montague, F.
Sexton, T. M.
Westwood, J.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shinwell, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Silkin, L.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Naylor, T. E.
Silverman, S. S.
Wilmot, J.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Sinclair. Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Owen, Major G.
Sloan, A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Paling, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Parker, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Parkinson, J. A.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)



Pearson, A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —




Mr. Foot and Mr. Graham White




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Albery, Sir Irving
Ellis, Sir G.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, T.


Assheton, R.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Fleming, E. L.
Medlicott, F.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Goldie, N. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Beechman, N. A.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Blair, Sir R.
Granville, E. L.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Boulton, W. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moreing, A. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcaster, Stourbridge)


Boyes, H. Laslie
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hambro, A. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Brook, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hannah, I. C.
Munro, P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Harbord, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Bullock, Capt. M.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Patrick, C. M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peake, o.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hepworth, J.
Peat, C. U.


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cary, R. A.
Higgs, W. F.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Channon, H.
Holmes, J. S.
Pilkington, R.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hopkinson, A.
Ponsenby, Col. C. E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Proster, Major H. A.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Radlord, E. A.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hunter, T.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Rankin, Sir R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rickards, G. W. (Skioton)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Keeling, E. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kellett, Major E. O.
Rowlands, G.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Russell, Sir Alexander


De la Bère, R.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Salt, E. W.


Denville, Alfred
Lees-Jones, J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Doland, G. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandys, E. D.


Donner, P. W.
Levy, T.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Drewe, C.
Lewis, O.
Selley, H. R.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Llddall, W. S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Duggan, H. J.
Lindsay, K. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lipson, D. L.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Dunglass, Lord
Little, J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


E[...]kersley, P. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Smithers, Sir W.




Snadden, W. McN.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Tate, Mavis C.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham


Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wilton, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Thornton-Kemsley, C N.


Spent. W. P.
Touche, G. C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
York, C.


Stourton, Major Hon. J, J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)



Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Captain McEwen and Lieut.-Colonel Harvie Watt.


Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 64.— (Directions to local authorities to discharge junctions with respect to air-raid precautions.)

5.10 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 57, line 11, at the end, to insert:
(5) Where the expenses incurred by the council of a county district in discharging functions specified in a direction given to them by the county council are not repaid to the district council by the county council the county council shall repay to the district council any amount raised by the county council in the district in respect of the cost of similar functions discharged by the county council in other parts of the county.
Any question that may arise between a county council and a district council under this Sub-section shall be determined by the Minister.
This Amendment was put down at the request of certain associations of local authorities who were apprehensive that without it there might be a risk that a borough or urban district might have to pay twice over for work in the same category. The point is rather a technical one. It concerns the case where work is carried out in a district of a county on behalf of the county authority, and it was thought that there might be some little danger, as these matters are arranged, that without this Clause a district which had paid in the first instance for work carried out in its own area might automatically become liable for a share of similar work carried out elsewhere in the county.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 66.— (Determination of claims to compensation and increases of rent.)

Amendments made:

In page 58, line 39, after "increases," insert "or decreases."

In page 59, line 37, after "acquisition, "insert" or compulsory hiring."— [Sir J. Anderson.]

CLAUSE 68—(Rules as to form of reports.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 60, line 23, after "form," to insert

and include such particulars and information.
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that, in prescribing the form of report to be rendered under the Act, the Minister may require that reports, for example by owners of commercial buildings and occupiers of factories, shall include information as to the number of people working or living on the premises and also as to the amount of the area available as shelter under their proposals.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 60, line 27, at the end, insert "and including those particulars and that information."— [Sir J. Anderson.]

CLAUSE 71.—(Power of factory inspectors and local authorities to enter premises and penalty for obstruction.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 61, line 7, after "by," to insert "the Minister, the appropriate Department, or."
The object of this Amendment is to make certain that the Minister, or the appropriate Department, has the right of entry for the purpose of any action they may feel it necessary to take under Part V of the Bill with reference to public utilities, and under Part VI with reference to camouflage. Some of the Departments concerned feel that they should have the power, as they report that they have in certain cases experienced difficulty in obtaining the information from the undertakers.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

CLAUSE 73.— (Exemption of certain works from building by-laws, etc.)

5.16 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 62, line 30, to leave out "the advice of," and to insert, "advice given specifically to him by."
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it quite clear, in accordance with what was the original intention, that Subsection (I) (c) applies to advice given specifically with reference to a particular case and not to advice conveyed by implication in a general document, memorandum, or whatever it may be. Cases in which advice is given in general terms are intended to be dealt with in regulations under Sub-section (2).

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I welcome the alteration that is being made by this Amendment, but I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he proposes that this specific advice shall be given in writing. There should be something which the person who receives the advice can produce to the local authority or other authority when he wants to claim an exemption from the by-laws. Clearly a conversation between a factory inspector or some other person tendering advice and the recipient of the advice might create some difficulty. Therefore, although it is not stated that the advice shall be given in writing, I hope that there will be a general understanding that it shall be in writing, and that if necessary, there will be introduced in another place appropriate words to ensure that it shall be so.

Sir J. Anderson: I entirely share the view expressed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). From the point of view of sound administration, it is very desirable that the advice should be in writing, and that is the intention.

Mr. Ede: Will words to that effect be inserted in the Bill in another place?

Sir J. Anderson: I doubt whether it will be necessary to put it in the Bill.

Sir S. Cripps: Clearly there are cases where the inspector might go to a place and give advice orally, and then when he had gone there might be arguments about what he said. Surely, to make certain, it would be better to put it in the Bill.

Sir J. Anderson: As far as the inspectors are concerned, I think we could make even more certain by making this a specific written instruction to the inspectors. I will consider whether it is

desirable that words should be inserted in the Bill to deal with the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 62, line 34, at the end, to insert:
(d) by any person in pursuance of any notice under Part VI of this Act given to him by the Minister or the appropriate Department.
The object of this Amendment is to exempt from by-laws, requirements as to building lines, etc., works carried out in pursuance of a notice under Part VI of the Bill relating to camouflage and the obscuration of glare. It has been brought to notice since the Clause was first drafted that it might well be that in the case, for example, of camouflage, some structures which might infringe the building line might have to be erected in order to break up the outline of the building which it was intended to camouflage.

5.20p.m.

Mr. Ede: I welcome this Amendment. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in these matters there has to be notice in writing under Clause 41. Therefore, it would appear desirable that the Bill should be uniform and that everywhere in this particular Clause notices and advice which would have to be produced to the local authorities should be more or less in a common form and should be in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 79.— (Variation and revocation of orders.)

Amendment made: In page 64, line 31, at the end, insert "a specified mine or a specified commercial building." — [Sir J. Anderson.]

CLAUSE 80.— (Definitions of "factory." "factory premises," "mine" and "commercial building" and interpretation of references to persons working and persons employed.)

5.21p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 65, line 35, at the end, to insert:
(a) no building wholly or mainly occupied as a hotel or restaurant shall be deemed to form part of any factory premises.
It will be noticed that the definition of "commercial building" already adopted


in the Committee stage excludes any part occupied as a hotel or restaurant. It has been pointed out that the same question might arise in regard to factory premises, and for the sake of uniformity it is proposed to exclude hotels and restaurants which might be technically part of the factory premises from the definition of "factory premises," in the same way as was done in the case of a commercial building.

5.22p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not follow this Amendment quite as clearly as I have the others which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. Suppose that on the factory premises there is a canteen or a dining room where the factory staff is served, will that building be exempted by this Amendment? That would seem to me to be a building that might very well be described as a restaurant. There are a good many factories in which there are welfare schemes where such a building exists on the premises. It seems to me to be highly desirable that such a building should be regarded as part of the premises for the purposes of giving protection under the Bill, and that the people employed in it ought to be considered in deciding what should be done. There might be a case in which this would make all the difference between getting the appropriate number of people to justify a scheme being made. The persons employed in what one might call a works restaurant are, in fact, very often employés of the firm. I would like to have an assurance that such a building would not be regarded as a restaurant for the purposes of this Bill.

5.23p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I have been advised that the Amendment would not have that effect. There is no intention of excluding what is essentially a factory because a portion of the building or premises happens to be used as a canteen. The Amendment is intended to deal with the case of a building which is essentially a hotel or restaurant, part of which might come within the definition of a factory. For exactly the same reasons as determined the exclusion of restaurants from the definition of "commercial building," it is desired to exclude a hotel or restaurant from the category of factory premises.

5.24 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not been rightly advised. I will do the best I can to give him advice on the matter. For example, take a case with which I am familiar of a factory where, within the surroundings of a factory, there is a building which is wholly occupied as a restaurant and in which nothing is done except the feeding of the staff, cooking and similar things. It is a separate building, but it is within the purlieus of the factory. Clearly, that building would be one which is wholly occupied as a restaurant, and would not be deemed to form part of the factory premises. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do. He does not want a restaurant or a hotel to be considered as a factory; and he does not want to exclude a restaurant which is in a factory and part of a factory, and part of the actual staff and arrangements of the factory premises. I am afraid these words would exclude such a building. It depends entirely on whether or not there is a separate building. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to reconsider the matter.

Sir J. Anderson: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I know that the case of the separate building, of which he has spoken, has been considered, but I will certainly look into the matter and take further advice in the light of what he has said.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 66, line 31, after "college" insert "university."— [Sir J. Anderson.]

5.25 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 66, line 39, to leave out from "and," to the end of line 2, page 67, and to insert:
(ii) any residential part of a building (that is to say, any part which is used, or, so far as unoccupied, intended for use, for residential purposes) shall, if it is provided with a means of normal egress from the building which is not available to occupants of the non-residential part of the building, be disregarded for all the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to commercial buildings.
This is a drafting Amendment which I am proposing in order to improve the form of words that was inserted in the Bill on the Committee stage on the Motion of


of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). The object of those words was to secure that where there was a large building with shops on the ground floor, employing, say, 60 people, and above the shops good-class flats with living accommodation for, say, 600 people, that part of the building which included flats should not be reckoned as part of a commercial buildings if it were, in fact, separate and distinct from the remainder of the building and used exclusively for residential purposes. The object of the revised wording of the present Amendment is to make the position clear with regard to certain matters. First, it was thought desirable to include a specific reference to any part of a building intended for use for residential purposes which happened to be empty at the time, and to put that on the same footing as the part which was occupied. Secondly, the reference to its being exclusively used for residential purposes might have led to difficulties. For example, there might be an author living in a flat and employing a typist to whom to dictate his work. Thirdly, it was thought that in the absence of any express statement, there might be difficulty in saying when a part was separate and distinct from the remainder. Therefore, it was thought that it would be best to adopt as a criterion the provision which appears in the Amendment, that is to say, the existence of
a means of normal egress from the building which is not available to occupants of the non-residential part of the building.
The word "normal" is inserted as a measure of precaution in case anybody should make the point that there is a fire escape in the building which is common to both parts. I am afraid it is rather complicated and technical, but we have done our best to make the position as clear as possible.

Mr. Ede: Would this exemption cover a drapery establishment which has a shop on the ground floor, and residential premises for the assistants on the upper floors with a separate means of egress? I believe that such establishments are less common now than they were a few years ago, but a few remain in some parts of the country. In such a case it seems to me the upper part of the building should be regarded as being one with the shop premises on the ground floor. Steps should be taken to make sure that these

cases are not exempted from the obligation to provide protection.

Sir J. Anderson: I am advised that the obligation on employers and owners applies to employé's who are living on the premises, although they may be in a separate part of the building. I shall have to look at it again, but it is certainly not intended to exclude portions of a building occupied in the circumstances described by the hon. Member.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 67, line 2, at the end, to insert:
(6) In relation to the provisions of Part III of this Act relating to the training of employed persons, this Section shall have effect as if for the words 'fifty persons,' wherever they occur therein, there were substituted the words 'thirty persons'
This Amendment is consequential on a decision taken in Committee at the instance of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) which made the standard for purposes of training, though not for shelter, 30 persons instead of 50. The fact was overlooked at the time that this consequential Amendment was required.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 67, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Provided that —

(a)regard shall not be had to any temporary increase occasioned by a change of shifts;
(b)in the case of any factory, factory premises, mine or commercial building where there are outdoor workers, regard shall not be had to more than twenty-five percent. of their total number.
In this Sub-section, the expression 'outdoor workers' means persons who, on a normal day, work in the factory, in the factory premises, in or about the mine, or in the commercial building, as the case may be, for not more than one hour.
This Amendment is a serious attempt to deal with a difficulty to which attention was called during the Committee stage. Every effort has been made to express, in perfectly precise terms, the legal obligation on employers, and on owners of commercial buildings, in the matter of provision of shelter. The definitions which at present appear in the Bill for that purpose, could be read in such a way as to include cases in which work is being carried on in two shifts, so that at certain periods of the day there are present at


the factory the members of both the outgoing and incoming shifts. The question was raised, whether it was the intention of those responsible for the Bill to put upon employers in those circumstances the obligation to provide shelter for twice the number of people ordinarily at work at any one time of the day, because at certain periods, for a very short time, the members of both shifts were present.
The point is not an easy one. We are concerned to ensure that, as far as possible, the shelter provision is adequate, and at the same time to avoid placing what might be regarded as an unreasonable or intolerable burden on the employer. We came to the conclusion that, on the whole, the proper course was not to require the employer to provide shelter beyond what is necessary to accommodate the workers belonging to one shift. We thought that, in time of war, it was, very necessary, for reasons not directly connected with this Bill, to guard against any undue concentrations of persons. It seemed to me and my advisers that unless arrangements could be made to prevent such undue concentrations, situations would arise which would involve grave danger, even if this Amendment were not made, and employers were required to provide shelter accommodation for the members of both shifts. One has to consider, not merely the situation arising at the actual moment of the change-over in the factory, but the assembling of workers in the new shift for the purpose of taking over. It seemed that the situation would have to be met by some rearrangement which would, as far as practicable, space out the change of shifts. There may be, in particular cases, serious practical difficulties, but we shall have to do our best to overcome them. As far as they cannot be overcome, the situation we think ought to be met by the further provision of public shelter in the neighbourhood of the works affected. That seems to us to be the proper line of solution, as far as it may be impracticable to deal with the matter by spreading out the shifts. So much for the problem of shifts.
Before I pass from it I wish to make one point in regard to mines. It is not certain that this wording would be appropriate to the case of coal mines, or other mines where there is the question not only of providing shelter for the shift at work — the shift underground and on the sur-

face— but also the question of the new shift coming on duty. I ought to say that the effect of this amended Clause, in relation to mines, would require further consideration in conjunction with the appropriate bodies.
I come to the next point involved in this Amendment which is referred to in paragraph (b). This is designed to deal with the case, also raised during the Committee discussions, in which there are, in connection with a place of business, not only the regular indoor workers, who work in the building for the normal day, but also outdoor workers, whose number may be comparatively large in relation to the number of indoor workers. The typical case is that of a business employing rounds men, who assemble at the headquarters of the business at stated times and who would require shelter accommodation. The appearance of these people at the headquarters of the business is a normal incident of the day's work, although they may not be actually present in the building for a very long period. It was thought that it would not be right to exclude altogether from the employer's obligation the duty to make provision for such people. But we thought it would be fair and reasonable from every point of view, if his obligation, in respect of the outdoor workers, were limited to 25 per cent. of the total number. It was felt that if arrangements were made, as they clearly can be made, for the attendance of these outdoor workers at different periods of the day, the shelter accommodation made in the factory under this definition would be reasonably adequate.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The problems dealt with in these two provisos have caused us some concern, and I think that, on the whole, the right hon. Gentleman has taken practical steps to meet them. I am sure, however, that in the end the best method of solving those problems will be for those responsible for organising industry in this country to give their minds to making arrangements for employment which will, as far as possible, avoid the circumstances envisaged in this proposal. I am not competent, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would claim that he is competent, to advise industrial leaders on this matter. I have suffered much in the past from being told by industrial leaders


how to carry on my business. I do not intend to return the compliment and to produce on them the harrowing effects which they have produced on me, when they have tendered me advice on a subject on which they were not competent to express an opinion. Clearly, it is everybody's desire that there should be as little risk as possible to life and limb. It should be possible, by consultation between employers and employed, to arrange that the difficulties shall be reduced to a minimum with regard both to changes of shifts and the attendance of roundsmen and other outdoor workers at the centre from which their business radiates.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the word "work" in the definition is the best word to suit the circumstances. When a Wall's ice-cream man arrives at the place where the ice-cream is distributed in the morning to collect his supply, and when he returns in the evening to hand in his money, what he does at those two periods of time might be misdescribed by the word "work." I wonder whether some phrase such as "carrying on their employment" would not more closely represent the actual position of those people at those times. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman shares the view that if employers are responsible for the congregation at certain periods of the day of persons employed by them, they must also be responsible for providing adequate shelter for those people. We want to be sure that no word is introduced here which would allow an employer who sought to do so, to evade the responsibility which the House, I think, unanimously desires to place upon him. Therefore, while we accept this proviso as a serious attempt to meet the case, we hope the exact wording will be looked into, so that evasion shall be made as difficult as possible.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: In regard to the question of the change of shifts, I sincerely hope the Lord Privy Seal will give this matter his earnest attention. Many of us who are acquainted with the working of mines in certain counties realise that in one shift you may have from 300 to 600 men employed and that provision might be made by the proprietors of those mines for shelter for those men in case of

emergency, but at the changing of a shift you might have those 500 or 600 men increased to 1,000, and I submit that provision ought to be made to see that shelters are available in case of emergency during a change of shifts. Then, with regard to the paragraph which states that regard shall not be had to more than 25 per cent. of the total number, I submit that we ought to make provision for the other 75 per cent. What will happen, if we make provision for the 25 per cent., to the other 75 per cent. who may need shelter in an emergency? I sincerely hope the Lord Privy Seal will give his attention to those two points, and especially to the point relating to the shift system, where we may have, instead of 500 men employed in a pit, 1,000 at the change of shifts.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Duncan: There are two points that I should like to raise. I recognise that my right hon. Friend has made a serious effort to meet the points raised in the Committee stage, but with regard to the words in paragraph (b), that regard shall not be had to more than 25 per cent. of the outdoor workers, suppose you have a garage— take a London Passenger Transport Board garage as an example— where there are 80 people working. Twenty-five per cent. of that number is 20. Will the Transport Board therefore be outside the scope of this Clause because regard should only be had to 25 per cent., or 20 of the workers; in other words, will the Board have to provide shelter only in a case where there are 80 workers, or will they still have the obligation of making shelter for 20 out of the total 80? The other point is with regard to the figure of 25 per cent. I gave the example of the London Passenger Transport Board garage because I have one in my constituency, but the matter could be raised in connection with many other garages and bus operating undertakings. My right hon. Friend mentioned the case of milk roundsmen. In that case all the roundsmen go to the place where they collect the milk at the same time in the day, but in the case of a bus operating company, the employés do not go at the same time, and it may well be that, although 100 men are employed in the course of the day at the garage, nothing like that number is ever there at the same time. In those circumstances would it not be possible to have a smaller figure than 25


per cent. in those exceptional cases where never at any time of the day or night is there anything like the total number of workers on the premises at the same time? In this connection, perhaps before the Bill goes to another place, my right hon. Friend will consult with a public-spirited body like the London Passenger Transport Board or in any case of road transport undertakings, to see whether some special provision might be allowed in their case.

5.51 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: With regard to what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, as to the manner in which this provision would work in practice, it coincides exactly with the view taken in the Department when this Amendment was drafted. We contemplated going a little further than I think he had in mind, for we contemplated inviting the organisations representing the main employers who will be affected by this Clause to address themselves to the reorganisation of their arrangements to meet that particular difficulty.

Mr. Ede: I suggested that those arrangements should be made privately between employers and their employés. I hope that no words that the right hon. Gentleman may inadvertently have used will be taken to limit that at all, because this is the kind of thing where, if there is not close understanding and co-operation between employers and employed, the best of schemes may be quite futile.

Sir J. Anderson: I quite agree, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows that in all the arrangements which the Department is making with a view to securing the collaboration of industry, we are taking into consultation the employers and the employed. The hon. Gentleman who raised the question as to the aptness of the words used in this Amendment put his finger on the point which has given rise to the doubt that I expressed in regard to its application to the case of mines. In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Stewart), I do not know whether he heard what I said in regard to the application of this Clause to cases of coal mines, but I said that the Department recognised that it might be necessary to give further consideration to the matter.
There is no difference, I am certain, between hon. Members opposite and the Government as to what we want to do, which is to ensure that people who go to mines or factories in order to work are provided with adequate shelter.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman says the Department realise that it might be necessary to give further thought to this matter. Will he say that it will be necessary, that it is necessary?

Sir J. Anderson: In any case, it is the intention of the Department to give further consideration to the wording of the Amendment from the point of view of its practical application to the case of a coal mine, in order to make certain that it is sufficient to ensure adequate shelter arrangements. In regard to the other points that have been raised, I do not think it is possible for me, on the spur of the moment, to do more than to say that they will all be taken into consideration, and if it proves necessary to make any adjustments in another place, such adjustments will be made.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 81.— (Other provisions as to interpretation.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 68, line 39, at the end, to insert:
premises, building or part of a building.
This is little more than a drafting Amendment, to make it clear that, where there is no occupier in the proper sense of the word, the person entitled to possession shall be deemed to be the occupier, not only of unoccupied land properly so called, but also of unoccupied premises, buildings, or parts of buildings. The Amendment is designed to remove a doubt that was expressed by Scottish property owners in regard to Clause 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 69, line I, leave out "Owners," and insert "Owner." — [Sir J. Anderson.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The Lord Advocate.

Mr. Ede: On a point of Order. Are you not calling the Amendment in my name and in the names of two hon. Members opposite— in page 69, line 25, to leave out from "means," to the end of line 36, and to insert:



"(a) any persons authorised by any enactment or order to construct, work or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, gas, electricity or water undertaking; and
(b) persons who, though not authorised by any enactment or order (other than the Public Health Act, 1875, or the Public Health Act, 1936), to supply gas, are engaged in supplying gas to the public, and for that purpose make use of pipes or mains laid in any highway; and
(c) such other persons carrying on undertakings the due functioning of which, in the opinion of the Minister, is essential in the national interest and whom he may designate by order,

and 'public utility undertaking' shall be construed accordingly."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. It is out of order; it is outside the Financial Resolution.

CLAUSE 82.— (Application to Scotland.)

5.57 P.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 71, line 15, at the end, to insert:
 'leasehold interest' means the interest of the lessee in premises subject to a lease; references to an estate or interest in reversion expectant on a lease shall be construed as references to the interest of the landlord in property subject to a lease.
This is merely a translation of certain English terms into their Scottish equivalents.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 72, line I, to leave out Sub-section (6), and to insert:
(6) In Section eight, for any reference to Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925, there shall be substituted a reference to Section one hundred and twenty of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
(7)In Sub-section (1) of Section sixteen for the words 'become the subject of a charge 'there shall be substituted the words 'be charged and burdened by means of a charging order or in respect of which he may become liable to pay an increase of rent.'
(8)In Section seventeen—
(a) for Sub-section (2) there shall be substituted the following Sub-section:
(2) On the termination, within the period of ten years immediately following the date of the completion of the works, of any tenancy of the whole or any part of the premises, being a tenancy in existence at that date, the outgoing tenant shall, unless it is otherwise agreed in connection with the works or after the completion thereof, be entitled to recover from the proprietor of the premises a sum which bears to the

net ascertained cost of the works the proportion which so much of the said period as is unexpired at the termination of the tenancy bears to the whole of the period.
Where under this Section any sum has been paid by the proprietor of the premises to an outgoing tenant, the rent payable under every lease of the premises derived from the estate or interest of the proprietor, being a lease in existence at the date of the completion of the works, shall, unless it is otherwise agreed in connection with or after the making of such payment, be increased at the annual rate of one-tenth of the net ascertained cost of the works. Such increase shall operate on all rent payable under the lease in question during so much only of the period of ten years aforesaid as is unexpired at the date on which the said payment to the outgoing tenant becomes due.
In this Sub-section the expression "proprietor" includes any person who under the Lands Clauses Acts would be enabled to sell and convey the premises to the promoters of an undertaking.'
(b) in Sub-section (3), for the words 'entitled to interests which may become subject to such a charge as aforesaid,' there shall be substituted the words 'who may by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Section become liable to make payment of any sum or of an increase of rent,' and
(c) for Sub-section (4) there shall be substituted the following Sub-section—
'(4) It shall be competent for the Minister to make, on the application of the outgoing tenant, a charging order in his favour charging, and burdening the premises with an annuity to repay the sum due to him under Sub-section (2) of this Section in like manner as a local authority may make a charging order in favour of an order under Section twenty-one of the Housing (Scotland) Act. 1925, and the provisions of Sections twenty-one and twenty-two of that Act shall apply accordingly subject to the following and any other necessary modifications—

(i) the annuity charged shall be such sum and payable for such number of years as the Minister may fix; and
(ii) for any reference to the Department of Health for Scotland there shall be substituted a reference to the Minister.'"

The purpose of these additions I can explain in a few words. The new Subsection (6) makes the appropriate provision so far as Scotland is concerned in regard to the power of local authorities to provide car parks. The new Subsections (7) and (8), which fall to be read together, arise upon this point. Under Clause 17 of the Bill, which deals with factories occupied on short leases, there is a provision that, so far as England is


concerned, the sum payable to the outgoing tenant is to be charged on the interest expectant on the termination of the tenancy, "an expression more familiar to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) than to myself. Such an interest, if it is another lease, cannot in Scots law, except under unusual circumstances, be made the subject of a charge. It has been necessary to achieve a similar result for Scotland by a slightly different method, and the effect of the Amendment here is to provide that the sum due to the outgoing tenant, instead of being made a charge on" the interest expectant on the termination of the tenancy," is to be-paid by the proprietor himself. If the premises do not pass to the proprietor but pass into the possession of another lessee, the proprietor will be able to recoup himself by increasing the rent.

Amendment agreed to.

6.0 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 72, line 28, at the end, to insert:
(8) ]n Sub-section (3) of Section nineteen, the words from 'and if they take,' to the end of the Sub-section shall be omitted.
(9) Part III of this Act shall have effect as if. after Section twenty-three there were inserted the following Section:

'Special provisions as to buildings in divided ownership.

23a.— (1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act any reference to a building shall, in the case of a building in which separate storeys or parts belong to different owners be construed as a reference to the whole building so far as it is under the same roof and is enclosed within the same gables and walls and any reference to the owner of a building shall, in the case of such a building as aforesaid, be construed as a reference to the owners of the several storeys or parts of such building jointly and severally.

(2) Where works have been executed by virtue of this Part of this Act in a part of such a building as aforesaid of which part the owner is himself the occupier, the owners of the building shall, unless it is otherwise agreed in connection with the works or after the completion thereof, pay to the owner of that part annually for ten years a sum equal to the diminution of the annual value of that part of the building ascribable to the impairment of the usefulness thereof by reason of the execution of the works ascertained as at the date of the completion of the works. Such sums shall be payable on the day six months after the completion of the works and annually thereafter.

Where such sums arc payable Sub-section (5) of Section eighteen shall have effect as if the word "two" were omitted, and the following paragraph added—
(e) any annual sum payable under Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-three (a) of this Act." '

(3)The owner of each part of such a building as aforesaid shall contribute towards the expenses of the owners under the notice (as defined in Sub-section (8) of Section eighteen of this Act, with the addition of the sums (if any) payable under the last foregoing Sub-section), a sum bearing to the total expenditure the same proportion as the annual value of his part of the building at the date of the completion of the works bears to the annual value of the whole building at that date.

(4)Where the owner of a part of such a building as aforesaid, who has become liable under the foregoing provisions of this Section to contribute towards the expenses of the owners of the building is not the occupier of the whole of that part, the rent payable under every lease derived from his estate or interest (being a lease in existence at the date of the completion of the works) shall be increased or decreased in like manner and subject to the like conditions as rents are increased or decreased under Section eighteen of this Act.

(5)Any question arising between the owners of such a building as aforesaid as to their respective rights or liabilities arising out of this Section shall, in default of agreement, be determined in like manner as any question as to the payment of compensation to which Section sixty-six of this Act applies is determined.'

(10) In Section twenty-eight, for Subsection (3), there shall be substituted the following Sub-section—
'(3) Any amount due to a local authority by way of repayment of an advance made by them under this Section may be recovered as a civil debt; and it shall be competent for the local authority to make in favour of themselves a charging order, charging and burdening the premises in respect of which the advance was made with an annuity to repay the advance in like manner as they may make a charging order in favour of themselves in respect of expenses incurred in the execution of works under Section fifteen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930; and the provisions of Sub-section (I) of Section eleven of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938, shall apply to a charging order made in pursuance of this Subsection subject to the following and any other necessary modifications that is to say—

The annuity charged shall be such sum as the Department of Health for Scotland having regard to the rate of interest agreed under Sub-section (2) of this Section in respect of the advance may fix, and shall be payable over such term of years as will enable the amount due to be repaid within 10 years from the date on which the advance was made.' "

The new Sub-section (8) is consequential upon the Amendment which has just been moved. The new Sub-section (9) raises a point which is peculiar to Scotland. In Scotland flat properties are quite commonly held in separate ownerships, the different horizontal layers of a building belonging to different owners. I am not familiar with the English practice, but I am informed that this system is practically unknown in England. The difficulty is that as regard the provisions of this Measure which affect commercial buildings the English code would hardly fit a case in Scotland where there is a block of flats, or storeys as we call them, in separate ownership with more than 50 persons employed on the premises. In order to adapt the provisions of the Bill so far as we can to the special situation in Scotland we have adopted the system of regarding the building as a whole so far as within the same gables and under the same roof and imposing the obligations of the Bill upon all the owners jointly and severally. They will contribute to the cost proportionately to the value of their respective properties, and where the owner of the basement in which the shelter is constructed is himself the occupier he will get compensation similar to that which the occupier of the basement gets.

Finally, we have made provision for the possibility of difficulties by leaving any question in dispute to be determined under the arbitration Clause. The whole object of this provision is to make the situation in Scotland as nearly as may be the same as in England, but I propose to look very narrowly at the Clause again after the Bill is reprinted following the Report stage, in order to be quite clear that some of the Amendments, particularly some of those discussed yesterday and the manuscript Amendments, do not require some improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 74, line 30, at the end, insert:
and Sub-section (2) of Section ninety of the Public Health Act, 1936 (which relates to the question of what constitutes the erection of a building) shall apply for the purposes of this Section as it applies for the purposes of Part II of that Act, notwithstanding that that Act does not apply to Scotland.

In page 75, line 22, at the end, insert:
and for any reference to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, there shall be

substituted a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932.

In page 76, line 2, leave out "Subsection (2) of."

In line 13, leave out from "1937," to end of line 21.

In line 31, at the end, insert:
(17) In Section fifty-nine for any reference to a county borough there shall be substituted a reference to a burgh.

In line 34, at the end, insert:
and for any reference to any amount raised by the county council in the district there shall be substituted a reference to any sum paid over by the council of the small burgh to the county council in pursuance of a requisition.

In page 78, line 13, leave out "deemed" and insert "approved under the Act of 1937 so as."

In line 15, leave out "the Act of 1937," and insert "that Act."

In line 33, at the end, insert:
and in the definition of 'owner' for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'(b) where there is such a lease, the tenant there under or, if there are two or more such leases, the tenant under the latest in date thereof.' — [The Lord Advocate.]

Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.8 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I am sorry that through another appointment I was prevented from getting here earlier, and though I desire to see this Bill in operation at the earliest possible moment I think that if the Lord Advocate has not already given it, we might have an explanation of how far our tenement system in Scotland can be adapted to provide shelter under the provisions of this Bill. We have in Scotland a tenement system such as does not obtain south of the Border, and it is in those ghastly tenements in large cities like Glasgow and Dundee—more particularly in Dundee— that this problem will arise. In Dundee in my time there was a tenement arrangement with 13 storeys. It is obviously impossible to adapt a bomb-proof-shelter system which is equally effectual for crowded warren tenements in Scotland and for what is called the two-flat system in England; and before this Measure passes from us I should like to hear from the Government whether the lawyers are


perfectly satisfied that the new Clauses approved of yesterday can be made applicable to our Scottish system, and if not what provision the Government intend to make for ensuring bomb-proof shelters for working classes who in Scotland live predominantly in these three-storey tenements.
We are well aware that this Measure is in many respects a complete revolution in local government and in the law of property ownership, and we know also that "Needs must when the devil drives," and that this Measure must be passed quickly. Possibly, therefore, it has not had the consideration that ought to have been given to it. We have had huge Clauses thrown at us, much of it legislation by reference, all the reactions of which I, at any rate, am utterly unable to comprehend; and while the responsibility of the Law Officers of the Crown is very great I think we ought to have the fullest possible explanation before this Measure leaves the House.

6.10 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I should like to congratulate the Lord Privy Seal on having more or less though not entirely reached the last stage of his long journey with this complex and difficult Bill. If he will allow me to say so, he has shown considerable patience in these Debates. It is true that sometimes he has made long speeches, but the Bill makes many precedents in dealing with new problems, and I make no complaint of the trouble he has gone to in explaining in detail not only the various Clauses but the various Amendments which he himself has had to move. Perhaps the best proof of the complexity of the problem is furnished by the number of Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman himself has had to move on the Report stage after the Bill had been examined by the House in Committee, and I think he will recognise that this is a case in which the House has been able to "lick a Measure into shape" and to improve it. The only tragedy is that the House should be spending its time and the taxpayers' money upon Civil Defence instead of concentrating on some of the social problems which are still crying out for solution. However, we must be realists, and I think we have made a useful contribution to national safety by this Bill.
I am sure that I am echoing the general feeling of the House when I say that this is really an enabling Bill. It sets up vast new machinery, it attempts to deal with all phases of the defence of the home, of industry and of the lives of the people, in the case of air attack in war time, but its success will depend upon the driving force of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, including the Minister of Health, and the good will of the local authorities. It is a case for leadership. I am not one of those who regret that the great work of Civil Defence is being done mainly through the local authorities. That is in accordance with our best traditions. It might have been easier and simpler for the Government to have done the work through Departments like the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, but I am sure the Government were right in adhering to the well-established and on the whole efficient system of local government. It has to be recognised that the standard of local government varies in different parts of the country, often according to the financial facilities available. Though the Government are shouldering part of the burden, I know from my own personal knowledge and experience that some local authorities are so poor, owing to their low assessable value, that even a very small burden which may be imposed upon them may mean a serious addition to their rates. If this great machine ever has to be put to the test, which God forbid — though in passing this Bill we admit that there is a possibility of its being put to the test — the Government will have to see to it that there are no gaps.
It is necessary for the Department to strengthen their staff of inspectors, or perhaps it would be more proper to say their staff of advisers, and to go round the country prodding local authorities here and there and, in cases, giving the necessary technical expert advice, in order to promote the feeling, not only among the local authorities but among members of the great public who, in the long run, are the people concerned, that the Department and the Minister personally are conscious of the magnitude of the problem and of the urgent necessity of action being taken, not in three or four months' time, but without any further serious delay. That there has been delay we have to recognise, but the excuse has been made that


it was to some extent due to the lack of the necessary powers. Now the House is giving these powers to the Government.
I make a constructive suggestion. This is a complex Bill which even Members of this House, with all their legal knowledge or expert experience in local government, have found difficult to understand. It will be a maze and a puzzle to many local authorities, and even more so to the great public. I suggest that the Department might very well take a leaf out of the book of the War Office and that the right hon. Gentleman might learn something from the propaganda methods of the Secretary of State for War, who might be criticised as a War Minister but there is no greater than he—I will not say in the matter of self-advertisement but—in the matter of advertisement for the work of his Department. I suggest that a popular pamphlet, illustrated if you like, should be published, such as the pamphlet that we received from the War Office the other day. It should be in the form that "he who runs may read," and should be available either on the bookstalls or from the local authorities.
I should be neglecting my duty to my constituency if I did not refer briefly to the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to deal in this Bill with the problem of shelters. After listening to the Debates and reading all the necessary literature I recognise that the technical experts have recommended—and we must more or less accept their recommendation—that variety and quantity are more necessary than quality. If the public is to carry on with its work it must have shelters, both at work and in going to and from work, as well as near home. That means a great variety and quantity of shelters. I still believe, and I think that the House believes, that it will be necessary to have in certain crowded areas, such as near the docks in great cities, some form of strengthened communal shelter so that people living in what we familiarly call slums, but are more correctly described as crowded streets and old-fashioned houses, should have somewhere to find safety for themselves and their families in case of air attack.
I hope that the Minister of Health, who is not present, will closely co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in making these

evacuation schemes as clear and as complete as possible. We are giving very great powers to the Government in this Bill. Some of the powers have shocked and I might almost say outraged some of our constitutional traditions and they have stirred to anger many of the lawyers of the House. We have made one or two attempts to modify the Clauses concerned, but more or less unsuccessfully. I realise that, in the light of the emergency, we have to sacrifice some of our constitutional safeguards, but if we are to give these drastic powers, and if the House is to depart from its practice by putting very wide powers in the hands of local authorities, we are entitled to know that the machinery for evacuation is efficient and ready, and that if it were put to the test it would come into smooth working and satisfactory operation. In reference to school teachers and school children the local authorities will be mainly responsible, but the actual operation will be in the hands of the great teaching profession which, last September, loyally and enthusiastically prepared to make arrangements to evacuate the school children. They are still left largely in darkness and do not know what the regulations are likely to be and the form they will finally take.
We have a right to demand that these regulations shall be published to the world in order that the public may know what the provisions are and that local authorities who have to evacuate the population will know their responsibilities and duties. It is probably even more important that the local authorities who are to receive the children shall know their liabilities and how they are to carry out their responsibilities according to the form that the machinery is likely to take. I would end as I commenced. The Bill has our blessing and our good will, but if it is to be a success the right hon. Gentleman will have as large a task as he has ever had to undertake, in his many responsible positions. If he shows the same energy and enthusiasm as he displayed as a civil servant and a Governor in India he will well deserve the gratitude of his fellow-countrymen.

6.24 p.m.

Major Procter: I intervene in this Debate because I have received from one of my constituents a letter which I desire to pass on to the authorities responsible for air-raid shelters. My correspondent


informs me that a great discussion is going on almost throughout the country on the subject of the inadequacy of the shelters which are proposed, and, describing the trenches which have been dug in various places, he says:
These shelters which are provided in the parks are totally inadequate. They are just newly-dug graves, all ready for those who may be bombed in their vicinity.
He suggests that Nature has already provided in or near most towns, such as London and my constituency of Accrington, a very easy way in which such shelters might be provided, and I take the opportunity of asking the Minister whether he will, in accordance with this suggestion, consider the tunnelling of the hills in all the towns.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is raising a question which is outside the scope of the Bill and, on the Third Reading Debate, that is not in Order. On this occasion hon. Members may discuss what they think will be the effect of the Bill but they cannot make suggestions which go outside its scope.

Major Procter: I realise that the ruling of the Chair is unfortunate to back-benchers who, like myself, have had no opportunity of taking part in the Debate, and I must try to get this matter, which is regarded as urgent, brought before the attention of the Minister. The Bill provides for shelters of various kinds, and I am suggesting that the hills in many parts of the country should be used in conjunction with them where possible. The Government can use the chalk pits which exist around our coast and the various eminences, so as to prevent the digging of trenches in the parks and the creation thereby of landmarks which are, in most cases, quite visible to aircraft. I trust, although my remarks may have been ruled out of Order, that they will nevertheless come before the Minister's attention.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: I want to raise a point which concerns two small burghs in the county which I have the honour to represent and which have been scheduled as vulnerable areas. They find themselves very seriously affected by the Bill because of the financial obligation laid upon them and because of the circulars which have been issued giving effect to the pro-

visions of the Bill. They are the two burghs of Bo'ness and Queensferry on the southern side of the Firth of Forth. It is easily recognised how it has come about that they are regarded as vulnerable areas. Bo'ness is a small port near the aerodrome at Grangemouth and South Queensferry is near the Forth Bridge. Both places are within easy reach of the very important Scottish naval dockyard of Rosyth which, in time of war, would be a place of very great activity and con-sequent danger, one might assume, from air attack.
The town clerk of Bo'ness has written to me, and his letter is fully endorsed by the town clerk of South Queensferry. The latter has not given to me the same details of how the Bill and the Home Office Circulars will affect South Queensferry.. The position of Bo'ness can easily be understood from the information which has been passed on to me by the town clerk of that burgh. I am hoping that it may be possible for the Lord Privy Seal, or whoever is to reply to the Third Reading Debate, to give at least some comfort to these two burghs by assuring them that they will not be financially ruined by the impositions called for as a result of the Bill. Bo'ness has a population of 10,000, of whom it is estimated that 9,000 will have to be provided for, and, estimating the cost of the provision of shelters at £4 per head, that gives a figure of £36,000. Allowing for steel shelters and materials for concrete shelters that are to be supplied free, which would represent about 50 per cent. of the total cost, that would bring the figure down to £18,000. It is estimated that grants of about two-thirds of that cost would be forthcoming, leaving the town council. with £6,000 to raise, and, adding survey and other expenses, the total amount to be raised is approximately £6,500. The estimate of the burgh surveyor of Bo'ness seems on the face of it to be a fairly reasonable estimate.
That total debit of £6,500 is to be imposed upon a burgh whose rateable value in the year 1937–38 was £60,960. For the current year, 1938–39, it is estimated at £62,900, there having been a considerable amount of building, which has added to the estimated rateable value. At the present time the town has a rate of us. 8d. in the £ and a 1d. rate produces, on the estimated total rateable value, only £260. This burden of £6,500, on a total


rateable value of —62,900, is looked upon by the town council of the burgh as being too heavy a burden for them to be called upon to bear, and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will look into this matter very carefully and see whether more cannot be done by his Department to meet the very serious needs of that particular burgh, which recently has been more badly hit by unemployment than previously. Although it is true that a certain amount of seasonal pitwood trade relieves the unemployment position to a certain extent at the present time, there is no gainsaying the fact that Bo'ness is worthy of being afforded the facilities provided under the Special Areas Act.
The position with regard to South Queensferry, a considerably smaller burgh, is that it has a rate of 12s. 4d. in the — It is estimated that its rateable value this year will be –14,600, and there a 1d. rate will produce only –61. As I have already indicated, I have not any estimate from the South Queensferry Town Council of what will be the total capital cost imposed upon them, but there is no doubt that it is bound to be considerable, and both burghs look upon themselves as being put in a very serious position by the financial burden involved by this Bill and the instructions that have been passed to them by the Home Office. In addition, of course, to their own particular needs, they come to a certain extent under county schemes, and are required to make their contributions in that regard. This, briefly, is the position I have been asked to put to the Lord Privy Seal. I will take the opportunity of writing to him more fully upon it when I get further information, especially with regard to South Queensferry, but I would like him, if possible, to give some comfort to these authorities, who feel that they are placed in a very serious financial position, casting upon their ratepayers very heavy burdens which they feel they ought not to be called upon to bear. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give them some reassuring answer which will show them that their fears of civic bankruptcy are not well founded.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Boulton: I think that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal is to be congratulated on having piloted this very difficult Measure through the House with

so much smoothness. We all, 1 think, must look upon the Bill as being in the nature of a great experiment, and, therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will hold himself quite free to make any modifications that experience may show to be necessary in the future. I am bound to say that we in Sheffield are disappointed that more of the suggestions contained in a memorandum which perhaps he may remember having received from us have not been adopted, but at the same time we are thankful for some of the modifications that have been made. I want to assure my right hon. Friend, on behalf of Sheffield, that the authorities and employers are sincerely wishful to assist him in this very important work, but we attach great importance to quick decisions. If these schemes are to be got into operation quickly, we must have quick decisions, and I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be willing to consider any suggestions that may be made, even now at this late hour for speeding up the schemes which I know he is very anxious to see put into operation. I do not know whether I shall be in order in referring to one suggestion which we made, and which is in line with the Bill and with the speeding up of the schemes, namely, that industrial and commercial advisory committees should be formed in the great industrial areas, and particularly invulnerable areas like Sheffield. We feel that such committees would be of great advantage and assistance, not only to the employers in the area but to the administrative authorities, and, if my right hon. Friend could see his way to welcome that proposal openly, or to send an invitation to certain are as to form such committees, I think it would have a great effect and would assist materially in getting these schemes through smoothly and quickly.
I should have been glad if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health had been in his place, because what I am now about to say refers to him. It is with reference to evacuation and the receiving areas. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is still willing to reconsider his proposal with regard to receiving areas, and I want once again to draw his attention to the Blackwater area in Essex. That part of the country, which is to be a receiving area, is in the direct route of enemy aircraft. In the late War, the area was crowded out with military. We had


great evacuation schemes in the event of possible invasion. I do not know that we need fear that so much to-day, but still the military have to be billeted. We have searchlight stations all over the area; one of them is to be at my own home, and they come to us to billet the men. I want to know whether the present evacuation scheme for that particular area has been arranged in line with the military authorities. That is very important, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider whether the Blackwater area should be a receiving area at all. I recall that in the last War the small town of Maldon, four miles from where I live, had bombs dropped on it which did considerable damage. Its population numbers possibly 4,000, but that population is to be doubled by evacuating children and adults from London. I venture to think that that is a decision which ought to be reconsidered, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, if my remarks should be reported to him, will be able to see his way to do that. I again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on having carried the Bill through. It is a very important Measure, and one which, I repeat, we regard as a great experiment.

6.40 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: The hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Boulton) has referred to the Bill as being an experiment. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) referred to it as an enabling Bill. I should like to suggest that it is a foundation. I think that everyone in the country will congratulate the Lord Privy Seal on having got the Bill so far through the House; it is certainly a labour of Hercules. But, although we congratulate him on having got so far, it is really only the beginning of a still more tremendous task; the Bill is a foundation on which more will be built. On the occasion of the introduction and eventual passage of the first Air-Raid Precautions Bill, I remember saying that the estimates were quite inadequate, and that the scale of operations then contemplated would be very much exceeded. The present Bill, although it is very much more extensive than anything of the kind that has previously been passed, and although it covers an enormous area of ground and many services, is still, I venture to think, only the foundation of something very

much larger that will eventually have to be built.
With regard to the service of evacuation, which is dealt with to a large extent in the Bill and in regulations and arrangements made by the Minister of Health, there will certainly have to be more evacuation, and not less, than is at present contemplated. As regards shelter accommodation, both for the general civilian population and for those who are working in factories and other places where work of national importance is carried out, there will have to be more rather than less shelter provided. The present provision will be a foundation, and not the completion of the building. Casualty organisation, too, which is an enormously important part of the service, will certainly have to be much more extensive than a good many people even contemplate at the present time. The hospital organisation will be very greatly increased, and that is also the case with many other services which I will not particularise. Indeed, I venture to say that we shall not get the civil defence services which will really meet the needs of the country until those services are regarded as what I think I have called them once before in this House—the fourth arm— and until they are organised in a way that is comparable with the organisation of the three Fighting Services.
I have a series of suggestions to make, and I make them with the real intention of being helpful. I suggest that the public ought to be taken into the confidence of the Department more with regard to all sections of its work. I know how difficult it is in any department—it may be the medical department, the fire-fighting department or any other department—where there are men concentrating on their work, specialising on their organisation, absorbed in the details, realising the importance of the details, to realise that those outside with whom they have to deal will not have the same knowledge of detail, and, therefore, will not appreciate exactly what is being done, as those inside are able to do. I have had the opportunity sometimes of discussing with the heads of Departments what is in contemplation, and I have felt that they did not realise how little information on the details of the subjects they were considering was available to the general public, and what a great advantage it would have been if such details had been available.


That applies to the subject of evacuation. Yesterday I made some suggestions for greater publicity about draft regulations with regard to evacuation, in order that the general public may know precisely what the arrangements will be. I am not contemplating imposing penalties, forcing reluctant people to do what they do not wish to do; because I believe that the vast majority in the reception areas will be not only willing but anxious to do the best they can in receiving those evacuated from the towns. The best way to ensure this will be to give them as much information as possible about what they are supposed to undertake.
As a member of the medical profession, I know that that profession as a whole would welcome more information about the medical arrangements. The Lord Privy Seal may say truly that a great deal has been published on the matter, but it is also true that not enough is known by the generality of the members of the medical profession as to detail. The Lord Privy Seal may remember that during the Debates on the Bill I brought to his notice a memorandum by the medical officers of health of the London boroughs, condemning certain arrangements. I instance that because there is no doubt of the good will of the medical officers of the metropolitan boroughs and their desire to co-operate to the best of their ability; and if they did not understand, I suggest that the fault lay rather with the Department than with the medical officers themselves, because there had not been sufficient communication of information. More information should be communicated with regard to first-aid parties and casualty work generally. It is important that this information should be given not only for the use of members of the medical profession and auxiliary professions, such as nursing, but in order that they should be able to communicate the information to the general public. The general public will ask their doctors, very often their panel doctors, what is going to happen in regard to casualties. If they can be assured that a sound plan exists and that casualties will be adequately dealt with, that will contribute to maintaining the moral of the people. The same thing applies to fire-fighting. People often do not understand what fire-fighting organisation there is, and how far it is going to be effective.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green made an admirable suggestion, that the Lord Privy Seal should take a leaf out of the book of the Secretary of State for War and publish a little pamphlet describing, in simple language, what the Civil Defence organisation is doing. together with appropriate illustrations of a character to catch the attention of those who read it. The subjects I have mentioned lend themselves to publicity, and the whole country is looking, and will do so now more than ever after the passage of this Bill, to the Civil Defence Department and the Lord Privy Seal for some lead as to their duties in a time of emergency. The more information that can be published the better. It should be in language that is simple and intelligible, and as far as possible in words of one syllable; it should not be in complicated language, as was the case, for instance, with some of that otherwise admirable report on shelter policy; it should avoid technicalities; and if it does that it will be of the greatest possible assistance. Although there are many complications in the Civil Defence service, it is in essence a very simple thing: the organisation of the civilian might of the nation to resist aggression.
There is no doubt whatever of the intention of the people of this country to organise themselves to do everything in their power to resist whatever onslaught may be launched against them. If they are given a clear lead by the Lord Privy Seal, if they are told that each individual is a part of a great national organisation, that each individual has his or her place in strengthening the moral of the nation, there is no doubt that the effectiveness of our Civil Defence will be enormously increased. I believe that whatever may be the efficiency of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force— and we are all glad to know how enormously their efficiency is increasing— the best protection against aggression is the organisation of an efficient Civil Defence service, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the gigantic work that lies before him; and I warn him that the work that will be undertaken as a result of the passage of this Bill is not the end of his labours, but only a foundation.

6.55 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: On Monday the Lord Privy Seal made an important statement with regard to the deep shelter policy,


and he said that the Air Raid Defence League was in favour of certain of the principles of the policy which he was defending at that moment. It is true that the Air Raid Defence League has said quite clearly that it does not believe that it is possible to have deep shelter accommodation for all who live in towns which are subject to air attack. It is also true that we are in favour, subject to a certain qualification which I will mention in a moment, of the principle of equal protection for all who are exposed to equal risk. Nevertheless, it would be misleading to suggest that the league is satisfied either with the Government's policy or the speed at which the policy is being executed with regard to deep shelters. We think that a great deal more protection is needed in certain cases than seems likely to be secured in the near future by what the Government are now doing. I might say, incidentally, that if we do not believe in the practicability of deep shelters for everyone in all towns which might be exposed to attack, it is not for the reason suggested by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) that we are a well-to-do organisation, supported by well-to-do people. In fact, we should be delighted to welcome her as a member on payment of the not extortionate subscription of 6s. per annum.
Our opinion is based on the reasons set out in our pamphlet, which up to a certain point are the same as the reasons that the Lord Privy Seal has given. But we think that in a very considerable number of cases the risk is likely to be so great that the measures now proposed by the Government will be inadequate both as to evacuation and the protection of those who remain. This is certainly true, I do not say of the evacuation areas as a whole, but of the more vulnerable parts of the evacuation areas—such a zone, for instance, as that along each side of the River Thames from the docks up to about Battersea. Personally, I think that evacuation from such specially dangerous zones of evacuation areas ought to be on a much greater scale, even though that may mean crowding in the reception areas during the early weeks of a war. Then for those whose work requires them to remain in those specially dangerous areas there must be protection of a better kind than that which seems now to be proposed. I would earnestly entreat the Lord Privy Seal to see whether a great

deal more cannot be done in those cases. I would entreat him, too, not to use the principle of equality of protection for all those exposed to equal risk in such a way as to deter the provision of better protection where it is most needed and is immediately practicable. I agree with that principle if it means that in respect of the less well protected parts every effort should be made to level up to the standard of the others, but I do not agree that if in a very dangerous area it is practicable, either because of natural conditions in that area or because of a very energetic local authority, to get on with exceptional speed with special protection you should in any way discourage efforts there because, by reason of different natural conditions or a lethargic local authority, it would be impossible to get equal conditions somewhere else.
I think, too, that in all their arrangements the Government should, perhaps, draw a rather sharper contrast between what I believe to be the immensely greater danger of the early weeks of a war and the danger that may be expected to last throughout the whole war period. I think that many things ought to be done and many inconveniences of over-crowding and so on can properly be asked both of the receiving population and of the evacuated population for a short period of the Blitz Krieg effort that would perhaps be intolerable for a long period. It is, after all, very much better to be crowded than to be killed. Those are really only the brief comments that I desire to make at this stage of the passage of what is on the whole a most valuable and most necessary Bill.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I also should like to congratulate the Minister on the admirable manner in which he has conducted this Bill through the House. Before the introduction of the Bill, in which I am much interested, I had some experience in carrying out certain work and I hope that the Departments concerned will show some consideration to those people who have already provided trenches and other forms of protection that may not be entirely in line with the provisions of the Bill. They have done it for the good of their employés and for the public at large, and they spent money for this purpose before the Bill was introduced.
Another problem that the Department will have to contend with is connected with the enforcement of the Act. It is to be enforced by factory inspectors and mine inspectors as well as local authorities, and the departments of all those officials are at present very fully occupied. Factory inspectors have as much as they can do, and it will be very difficult indeed for them properly to enforce the Act during the next few months when it has passed. I can see serious difficulties arising in that direction. Then with regard to public shelters, I think the question of their location should be considered. They are to be erected only in suitable spaces. On the other hand, if the parks are filled with shelters and the population lives some miles away, there will be considerable difficulty in getting the people to the shelters in case of raids. I would ask whether it would not be better to provide shelters of a less adequate construction nearer the places where the population is located.
Under Clause 42 of the Bill, dealing with the obscuring of lights, there is no grant given to those who obscure their lights before notice has been served. This seems to me to be a very difficult problem. I know many factory owners who are at present prepared to make provision for obscuring their lights, but they will not do so because the notice has not been served. There is only a limited number of firms that can provide blinds and so forth for these lights. Factories built with glass roofing, even of moderate size, may require miles of blinds, and there will be considerable difficulty in getting these blinds of suitable material and erecting them within a given time. I hope, therefore, that the Department will lose no time in serving these notices. I know several firms who at the present moment are prepared to get on with this work. The obscuring of lights is not so necessary in summer as in winter, but when this Bill comes into operation the days will be getting shorter. The risk of war may be increasing, and the necessity to obscure lights will be greater. Therefore something should be done to expedite the grants in order that this work may be proceeded with.
There is one other point which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise, though it is not entirely dealt with in the Bill, the question of fire-fighting

apparatus. I hope the Government will encourage all factory owners to increase their fire-fighting apparatus. We do not know what course the next war will take, but it is quite possible that the incendiary bomb will play a very great part in air attacks, and if the fire-extinguishing apparatus is inadequate to deal with all fires that are started I think the result will be very serious in some districts. If the Government would give further encouragement to private owners to train more fire-fighting squads it would be very beneficial to the country.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: As a newcomer to the House may I, too, be permitted to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal, not only for his conduct of the Bill through the House, but for the magnitude of the task he has undertaken. One hopes that as the result of the passing of this Bill a great deal of disquietude that now exists will be dispelled. Last night by virtue of a position I hold as a member of a local authority—which, by the way, is not of the same political colour as myself —I was present when a resolution was passed condemning the lack of initiative and the lack of authority and decision on the part of those concerned with air-raid precautions preparations and air defence. Whether that criticism was justified or not I am not going to say, bat one thing that is essential if air defence is to be satisfactory is that confidence must be created in the minds of the people. Confidence is essential as a first factor, and I hope as a result of this Bill, and it may be of subsequent Measures that may have to be passed to amend and improve the Bill—possibly with some of the proposals which have not yet been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman—that in a very short space of time it can be truly said that the civilian population is well and properly defended against the: risk of air attack.
There is one point on which I would like to ask for information. I have received two communications from two local authorities in the constituency which I represent, the Oakwell Joint Hospital Board and the Dewsbury Joint Hospital Board, and both have asked me to bring to the notice of the Minister concerned, if possible in the course of this Debate, the fact that no provision has been made


to meet any proportion of the cost incurred by isolation hospitals for protective measures. I have here a copy of a letter received from the Ministry of Health, which, in reference to a request from a local authority for a grant for protective measures that they would have to take with regard to isolation hospitals, stated that—
inasmuch as the isolation hospital would not be used for the treatment of casualties under the hospitals emergency scheme but would be kept to its ordinary peacetime purposes only, the Minister could not recognise for the purpose of grant any expenditure incurred on protective measures.
If this is true it opens up an appalling state of affairs for these local authorities if they are going to protect their patients, as we all agree they should. It means that a great additional cost will have to be borne by the local ratepayers. Assuming that these hospitals are not protected, and assuming that in the case of an air raid they were destroyed, the patients who remained alive would have to be taken into hospital accommodation that would presumably be preserved for casualties, and not for infectious cases. I ask the Minister to take this matter into considertaion, because it is of fundamental importance to local authorities. If isolation hospitals are to be in any way adequately protected they need at least some encouragement, and some portion of the expenditure which they incur should be met out of grants.
I do not know whether the Minister will be able to make any statement on this point to-night. If he will, I am sure it will give great satisfaction, not only to the two authorities in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, but in the adjoining constituency. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here I should ask him to support me in this, as it affects isolation hospitals in the constituency he now represents. May I, in conclusion, say that we hope that, with the co-operation of the national and local authorities, effective defence provision will be made, though we sincerely hope that the necessity for it will never arise?

7.12 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I would like to take this opportunity, even at this late stage, to make one or two remarks about deep air-raid shelters, because I feel that the Lord Privy Seal, who has made many

speeches on this subject, insists that the House should look at it from only one point of view, and that is that there should be equal treatment for those exposed to equal danger. Although I cannot agree with him I might at least be able to understand his attitude towards deep air-raid shelters if he could support his argument by saying that everybody reacts equally to certain circumstances. In that he would be right, but they would perhaps all have equal treatment if they reacted in the same way. If we were able to analyse the personnel of those who have drawn up the different reports on deep shelters, I think we should find there had been one person sadly lacking. You have had your engineer and your builders giving reports, but has there been anybody who is interested in mob psychology? That is a very important factor when considering how people will react during air raids, and I am sure the House will forgive me if I describe a certain incident which will illustrate what I say.
Between 1914 and 1918 my father was a doctor, and I remember full well that during the air raids we had waiting in my father's consulting room men and women drawn from every grade of society. At one moment the siren would go and these people would all react to the air raid warning, and it was rather interesting, particularly from a medical point of view, to see how they reacted. We found nearly every time the air raid warning was heard that the Lord Privy Seal was right, and that equal treatment was needed except perhaps in one or two cases. The equal treatment which we meted out to these people was to give them a cup of tea. But I come to the exceptions. We found during every air raid that there were one or two persons who became hysterical, and they could not be kept in the waiting-room with the others for fear of panic. Within two minutes' walk of the waiting-room there was an underground shelter—a railway subway—which was considered by many people to be bomb-proof. Therefore, there was this deep air-raid shelter. How did these people react? One or two in the room had to be encouraged—and they needed very little encouragement—to go to the deep air-raid shelter. If they had not gone, they would have caused panic among those who were quite willing to put up with the air raids.
The Lord Privy Seal, many times during these Debates, has insisted upon equal treatment for those exposed to equal danger. What is he going to do for the people who do not react equally and who cannot bear the nervous strain? Is he going to allow them to panic? What is he going to do with those wives who refuse to leave their husbands? Is he going to penalise women because they prefer to stay with their husbands rather than go elsewhere? That seems to be rather a curious way of dealing with a wife who refuses to leave her home. It may be that the time will come when the Lord Privy Seal will be forced to change his mind because of these other circumstances.
Last July I was in Barcelona when two or three air raids were taking place every week. It is curious that I can relate my experiences from 1914-18 to what happened in Barcelona last July. In the hotel in which I was staying most people were pretty phlegmatic, and they resorted to a cup of tea, as we did during the air raids of 1914-18. But there were those of a hysterical type, the highly strung, who had to go to a deep air-raid shelter. During the last year of the war the Spanish Government were forced to provide deep air-raid shelters for that type of person. I have read one of the reports in which the engineers have said that if we provided these shelters the people would panic in the streets. That opinion was not borne out in Barcelona. I went to the shelters, and found that the people were going there with their children long before the sirens sounded. It is not a question of panic. The people who want shelter will go there before an approaching air raid is announced because they are so unnerved that they cannot wait for the sounding of the siren. Therefore, I ask the Lord Privy Seal to open his mind a little more. I have felt, as he has been talking at that Box, that his mind was closed and made up on this question, but I feel that this aspect of the matter is of such great importance that I beg of him to reconsider the whole situation.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I want to address a few words to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal with regard to a matter which has been raised in this House, but which I do not think that either he or

those acting with him have sufficiently understood. I am very interested in the maintenance by the local authorities of their existing powers as far as possible, and I believe that they should be allowed as far as possible to do the work required under this Bill satisfactorily without changing the system which is now in operation. Undoubtedly there will be a very great shortage of labour for a time in certain trades and of certain materials, and there will be many difficulties in carrying out the provisions of many of the Clauses of the Bill by local authorities, factory owners, and property owners of various kinds.
The Bill introduces some new principles into the building trade generally both in London and in other areas, and I am disturbed about it. I do not like it, and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will give further consideration to the points to which I am going to refer. It is the custom in all the big cities to-day for the local authority to have full knowledge of the buildings within their area. It is essential that they should receive plans showing precisely the nature of every building in their area. No local authority will allow any buildings to be erected without plans having been deposited and worked to strictly. In mining areas the Bill provides that the mines inspector shall be responsible for the air-raid precautions shelter which may be attached to a mine. I would have imagined that if people got deep down into the mine they would not require any other protection, but apparently some protection is contemplated on the surface as well as in the mine. The mineowner is to be responsible for the cost, and the mines inspector for the actual carrying out of the work. That may be all right, but there is no compulsion for plans of any kind to be submitted to the local authority. The result may be that all kinds of buildings may spring up in the area and the local authority will know nothing about them, and it may become a serious matter. It will be a serious matter in areas like London. In every borough in London and Greater London masses of plans are being submitted for all kinds of air-raid shelters, some on the general lines of the Code, and many quite distinct from what is contained in the Code.
Some of these plans mean the serious alteration of some very big building struc-


tures in the London area, and these alterations are to come under the jurisdiction of the factory inspector. I have a very high regard for factory inspectors. I have met them and been associated with them in many ways, and I look upon them as a body of men and women who are competent to do the job for which they are trained, but they are not trained in the work of supervising building construction. Under this Bill every factory will come under the factory inspector, and I say without hesitation, that factory inspectors have not received the particular type of training required. Many of them will know very little about the work they are to carry out in this connection. Local authorities are very much concerned about this matter. The factory inspector need not take the trouble to see that the copy of the plan of alterations that are to be made in these factories is lodged with the local authority. I can give an instance of a factory inspector who was willing to pass particular plans which proposed to alter the structure of a building to such an extent that the competent people in the area were satisfied that it would seriously undermine the foundations of the building, and that, as a consequence, the building might easily fall down.
I have another case in mind where the local authority had already arranged for a street widening of 20 feet, and in spite of that knowledge the inspector in that area was willing to go on with a plan that had been submitted to him and to pass it without any consideration of the fact that the local authority would in consequence find it impossible to get the 20 feet street widening. The local authority are now trying to induce the factory inspector to alter the decision to which he had already come. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to insist—and it is a very simple and right thing to do and will not cost him or the Government or anybody else very much—that, whatever plans are being agreed to by factory inspectors, they shall be lodged with the local authority, and that the local authority at least shall have the opportunity of suggesting to the inspector the alterations which they think are essential for the proper carrying out of the work.
The public are to pay very heavily indeed for some of this work. Contributions are to be paid to factory owners and others, and it is essential that the cost should be certified by competent people.

Would anybody suggest that the factory inspectors have at their disposal a staff of competent people to certify building work? I assert positively that they have not, and I am pretty sure that they will not be able to get an adequate staff because the labour is not available, and I do not think that it will be available. The local authorities have on their staffs the type of men who are competent to do that work, and men who have always done it up to now. The only people who can properly certify the specific purpose of the work that ought to be done are the staffs of the local authorities, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least insist that copies of plans shall be lodged with the local authority so that they will not get into a state of hopeless confusion in time to come, when the clouds of war have passed and we have got back to a more peaceful atmosphere than that which we are in at the present time.
I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has declared against the provision of deep shelters. He might have accepted the Amendment that was moved and not shut out deep shelters in all circumstances. It has never been my view, and it is not my view now, that deep shelters in any circumstances are necessarily good. There might be times and circumstances where they would be very dangerous, and I should hesitate to construct masses of deep shelters in an area like London; but there are places in London where I believe such shelters are essential, and where they would be of very great advantage to the public generally. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman might have had a little wider vision when he was considering the matter. He might even now leave it open to the local authorities to give consideration to the matter, and he could give wider consideration to any applications that might be made to him in that direction.
I have seen, and no doubt other hon. Members have seen, a form of overground shelter. I know nothing about the firm or the people responsible for the provision of this type of shelter, but I have examined it and was very much impressed. I think an overground shelter, built up with a loose soil covering, would be very much better from the point of view of the protection it could afford than, generally, the deep shelter would


be. This may be an expensive shelter but not an expensive form when one considers the accommodation that it would afford for considerable numbers of people. I think the right hon. Gentleman might reserve to himself power, even if he has to introduce a new Clause in another place, so that if local authorities or private people approach him he should have the power, after full consideration, if the circumstances warrant it, to agree to deep shelters or so some form of large and strong overground shelters, which can best be described as the mound system of shelter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have the power to consider applications if the circumstances warrant it and he feels satisfied that it is worth while to provide the kind of shelter to which I have referred.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: We have now reached the concluding stage of the consideration of this big and important Bill so far as the House of Commons is concerned, subject to any consideration of Amendments that may come in due course from another place. I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that it was a Measure that the House of Commons ought to have seen three to five years ago. It ought to have been, or something like it ought to have been, the law of the land for some years past, and the local authorities ought to have been actively building up their organisations during that period. It is a great misfortune that it is only in the present Session that the Bill has been produced. The consequence is that inevitably, although great progress has been made during the last year, we are not as ready as all would like to be in this wide and important field of Civil Defence.
The money that is being expended on Civil Defence by the State and the local authorities has now reached very big figures. It is clear that when His Majesty's Government, belatedly, decided to give more consideration to air-raid precautions, they had very modest ideas as to the probable expenditure on this service. We have now reached many millions of pounds and we shall get into many more millions before we are through with it. For the local authorities, too, the expenditure has reached very substantial proportions, and it is expenditure on a service which we think is more

national than ordinarily municipal in character. Undoubtedly, at some time reconsideration of the distribution of the cost as between the State and the local authorities will have to be given; indeed that is provided for and has been agreed to by the Lord Privy Seal and the Secretary of State. One further thing that ought to be and will have to be considered is the war time allocation of costs. If, unfortunately, an emergency should arise, what about the allocation of the cost of Civil Defence activities in time of war? Expenditure on a greatly increased scale would be necessary in time of war, and the principle ought to be accepted that at that point the entire cost of this work should be met out of national funds. It is not right that the municipalities should be expected to finance operations which would be essentially operations connected with the conduct of war.
This Bill, together with the Act of 1937, will constitute a considerable legislative code with regard to Civil Defence. The Act of 1937 was at best a skeleton Measure which left a great many gaps in administration and obviously necessitated a good deal of subsequent legislation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that it is highly probable that there will be legislative gaps left in this Measure. The Minister is bound to have a busy time in another place in filling up some of the spots of bother that the Government, in part, have got themselves into, and which I admit we have partly got them into. I can only hope that the Government will have in charge in another place a competent Minister who will be able to handle not only the Bill but their Lordships, and see that no trouble is involved.
I do not think we have done with this business. An enormous amount of administrative work will yet remain to the Lord Privy Seal and to the Ministers of the State Departments with whom he is co-operating in this matter. The Bill fills up many gaps. It is a comprehensive Measure and will bring to the Ministers and the local authorities powers that will be of value to them and which they ought to have possessed earlier. We have some regrets in connection with certain proposals we brought forward. We feel that there are grave gaps in connection with the shelter provision. We are sorry that


the idea of deep shelters, what are called the bomb-proof shelters, have been almost totally rejected by the Government, although it is true that more than once the Lord Privy Seal has said that there will be some highly vulnerable areas where that policy will be given favourable consideration on its merits; but up to now we have had no indications of any probable steps in that direction. We do not know whether the Government's intentions are geographical in this matter, or the nature of their decision as to the engineering requirements. This issue is being steadily postponed, and we think it is time that the Minister should look over the undoubted gaps that even now remain for some people in regard to any form of shelter. The point as to the provision of deep or bomb-proof shelters in the highly vulnerable areas is one on which the Minister ought to make a statement to-day or at an early date.
We hope that under this new Measure administration will be speedy and efficient. Since the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman there has undoubtedly been some speeding up in administration, but he will be the first to agree that there still remains, and probably will always remain, room for improvement. It is profoundly important that these new powers should be exercised by the State Departments with all possible speed, with every practicable efficiency and with every spirit of co-operation with all the other authorities concerned. As far as my own local authority is concerned we shall do our utmost to cooperate, and I should like to appeal to all local authorities that they should act with speed, precision and efficiency in this vital field of public administration. We are all proud of British local government. Nobody exceeds my own pride in the great status and high degree of efficiency of British democratic local government institutions.
This field of administration is going to be a high test of British local government, a test as to its public spirit, its efficiency and its power to combine the principles of democratic control with speed of decision. These matters need to be looked at constantly by every local authority so as to ensure rapid, almost immediate, decision in matters which come in this field with, of course, ultimate accountability to the council for the action taken. I hope that every local authority

will be willing to look at its standing orders and regulations in that respect and consider whether any improvement might be brought about whereby, with proper safeguards, the chairman of the committee concerned or its officers may be free to take decisions between committee meetings where there can be no reasonable controversy or doubt as to what ought to be done in order that speed can be assured. I am sure that the local authorities generally will co-operate energetically with the Ministers in the working of the Act. I earnestly appeal to them in this vital field to show our country and the world that British local government, as usual, can rise with promptitude and public spirit to a job, however difficult, new or complicated it may be, when that job requires to be done.
May I, in this connection, say a word of thanks as a Londoner, not only for myself, but on behalf of hon. Members who represent constituencies in London and other parts of the country which are evacuation areas? We realise the difficulty of this work and its profound importance. It must be carried through with smoothness, understanding, good will and efficiency. I recognise that the job of the local authorities in the reception areas is even more difficult that ours. It will have plenty of pitfalls and plenty of difficulties. The responsibility is theirs and that of the Ministers. I want as a Londoner, representing one of the evacuation authorities, to express warm thanks for the general cordial co-operation which the local authorities in the reception areas have given to His Majesty's Government, and their willingness to be as helpful as they can to the local authorities in the evacuation areas. It is due to the local authorities in those reception areas, largely small towns or districts rural in character, that the best thanks of those of us who are in the evacuation areas should be tendered to them for their cordial co-operation as members of local authorities. Thanks are also due to the officers and the citizens in those areas.
May I also urge upon the citizens of our country generally that they shall make up their minds that, whatever gaps in personnel for the air-raid precaution services exist, they will fill them at the earliest possible moment? Let us not under-estimate the enormous achievement of building up this great voluntary Army of 1,500,000 people throughout the


country in a period of less than 18 months. It is an enormous achievement, and it is a high tribute to the public spirit of our citizens and to the vitality of British democracy. We can be proud of it, and we are grateful to all citizens throughout the country who have come forward and are actively co-operating in this work. I know that some of them have met with difficulties in their air-raid precaution activities. I do not know whether the blame is with the Minister or with the local authorities—probably it is in both directions. They may have a legitimate field of irritation and disappointment that we have not been able to give them all they want as rapidly and as quickly as we should like, and I want to thank them for their patience and understanding. While they have grumbled and made their complaints, sometimes vociferously, I am sure that the Government and the local authorities will do all they can to wipe away the need for those complaints. I earnestly appeal to all citizens, men, women and young people, to consider their duty in the field of Civil Defence if they are not otherwise obligated in other fields of service. There are still big gaps which are being filled up by the organisation and training that are going forward, but I earnestly appeal to them to volunteer for this service so that at no distant date we can tell the world that substantially the service is fully enrolled and that we are ready for any emergency, although we earnestly hope the emergency may not arise.
In this Bill there are many restrictions and many controls. There will be a good deal of interference with the rights of property and with the interests of individuals. These restrictions have been freely imposed by a free Parliament on a free people, and I hope they will be accepted in the spirit in which Parliament has carried them through, believing that in these days of stress and possible emergency the requirements of the nation must have precedence over the needs and interests of property and the financial interests of individuals. It is done by a Parliamentary institution in the light of day, after Parliamentary discussion, and after all the interests concerned have had every right to raise their voices in protest against what is being done, indeed, after all these interests have been heard in the magic way in which they get heard

in this House through one channel and another. This is how the British do their work, this is how we organise and impose restrictions upon ourselves. For myself, I prefer government by consent, the imposition of restrictions by consent, when everybody has a chance to raise his quarrel, his argument and his row. Parliament reaches its decision in the light of day. This method is infinitely to be preferred not only in principle but, in the end, in efficiency, to the forcible methods of dictators which leave no ground for discussion and which impose far more rigid control and far more sweeping oppressions upon the people without discussion or argument. That is the method of dictators. I believe myself that the British way is the better way, not only morally but even from the point of view of making the nation willing and freely ready for any emergency which may arise. Dictatorship will have its troubles with its people directly an emergency exists, and our method, the method of democratic countries, in reaching decisions by discussions and negotiation is infinitely to be preferred, not only from the point of view of liberty and democracy, but even from the point of view of its effectiveness to defend itself in times of emergency.
Finally, let me say this. The best air-raid precautions, the best Civil Defence, is the building of an organised peaceful world. I regret the necessity for the Bill. I regret, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does, the necessity that he and I and others should have to devote an enormous part of our time, not only to the labour of this thing, but to the spending of enormous sums of public money which could be better spent in creative social effort and building up the social life of our people. But this is a job which has to be done. I never hesitated for a moment when I sat on a subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence in the Labour Government. It is obvious that this work must be done. I wish it were not necessary. It doubles my work on the London County Council and enormously increase the work of the officers. It means that some other, creative, work will have to be slowed down, and even postponed. It is involving us in enormous expenditure and diverting the efforts of many able civil servants, giving them great anxiety and worry. But the job has to be done; the


nation must be prepared; we must carry it through. I earnestly hope that with a wise and sound enlightened foreign policy His Majesty's Government may respond to the mood of the country, and I believe to the mood of the world.
The only way for this kind of expenditure to be made unnecessary, to be eliminated, is for the nations of good will and peaceful intentions to come together and combine in a strong combination, not with a desire to make war nor with a desire to inflict defeat, but with the primary and fundamental purpose of making the combination of the peaceful Powers so strong that no aggressor will dare to offend it. That is the best air-raid precaution, the best Civil Defence. I hope it will soon be achieved and then this vast expenditure upon armaments, this increasing expenditure upon Civil Defence, these increasing efforts of the national and local governments within this field may be slowed down and, finally, one day, all over the world mankind may be free to devote itself to the improvement and the advancement of the human race.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on getting his Bill to the Third Reading stage. I thank him for his courtesy and his consideration for the Opposition throughout all our Debates. The Bill is now a Bill to which every section of the House has made its contribution. The back benchers opposite have had Amendments accepted, we have had Amendments accepted, and Liberal hon. Members have had Amendments accepted. I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the great patience and courtesy with which he has conducted his Bill, and I hope that arising from it our Civil Defence will be enormously increased in efficiency and effectiveness, and I couple with that the hope that the day may soon come when this chapter in the story of mankind will be brought to an end.

7.55p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: It is with mixed feelings that I rise to address the House, very briefly, at this stage—feelings of relief, mingled with feelings of gratitude. Relief that a task which was bound to be heavy is approaching its end, and gratitude for the valuable help that has been given to me so readily by hon. Members in all quarters of the House. Before the Bill goes forward for consideration in

another place, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the House for the indulgence it has shown to me throughout the proceedings, an indulgence which has lightened very materially the task, which I approached with some misgiving, of conducting my first Bill through the House of Commons. If I at any time have fallen short of the standard expected of a Minister in charge of a Bill, if I have transgressed the Rules of Procedure, if on more than one occasion I have failed to spring with sufficient alacrity to my feet before the Question has been put from the Chair, and if I have denied to any hon. Member an explanation or an answer for which he was looking particularly, I hope it will be attributed to inadvertence and inexperience, and not to any deliberate lack of consideration.
Following the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) I should like to record my appreciation of the very practical and constructive help which hon. Members in all parts of the House have given throughout the consideration of this Bill. As I said when I first explained the provisions of the Bill on Second Reading, it is not one which any Minister could regard with unalloyed satisfaction. In many ways it is a most unpalatable Measure. It contains very drastic powers, it imposes heavy responsibilities and heavy financial burdens on industry and commerce and on the general taxpayer. It involves a degree of interference with private interests and with individual rights which could never be justified or tolerated in normal times. But, unfortunately, we have to agree that these are not normal times; and the House, recognising that exceptional times demand exceptional measures, has faced these unpleasant necessities in a very practical spirit. The Bill has not been delayed by any criticism which, however justifiable in normal circumstances, would have been out of tune with our present circumstances. On the more positive side, some very useful and constructive proposals have been put forward by hon. Members which I believe have materially improved the provisions of the Bill.
I said that I would be brief. We have listened to many interesting speeches and it would be exceedingly difficult, indeed almost impossible, for me to take up all the various points which have been


raised. I cannot, however, refrain from alluding to the particularly eloquent and moving words of the right hon. Member for South Hackney in the latter portion of his speech. I must say how much I welcome, and how cordially I echo, the appeal he has made to local authorities and to all concerned to do everything they can to speed up the arrangements and promote greater efficiency, whether by way of a delegation of functions or by any other expedient, to promote the speedy building up of our Civil Defence services. I echo the appeal that he made to the individual citizen to play his part in this vital business, to study how he can best help himself, his locality, and the country. The right hon. Gentleman has himself set a very good example in the promotion of collaboration and good will in these matters. All of us must from time to time see things which to our minds are open to criticism. Some of us may perhaps at times be more prone to see the defects in other people's arrangements than those which certainly exist in our own. But the keynote of this whole business must be collaboration. We are united in a great and most important enterprise on the successful accomplishment of which the future of our people, of our country, of Europe and indeed of the world, may very largely depend.
I am tempted to refer to one or two points which have been raised, and I think it will make for the convenience of the House if, in the points that I select, I omit matters which have already been dealt with at previous stages in the discussion of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) raised a point about the position in Scotland in relation to the Clause accepted yesterday dealing with flats. So far as working class flats are concerned, I think the Scottish position is exactly the same as the position in England. It is not a position which can be successfully met by the Clause in question but it can be met otherwise, through the provision by local authorities of shelters which would be accepted as public shelters although designed primarily for the people living in the flats, and would thus attract the full rate of grant under the Act of 1937. As regards yesterday's Clause, designed primarily to deal with better class fiats, the position in

Scotland, as far as I know it, is so materially different from the position in England, with recognition of separate ownership of different parts of the buildings, that I doubt very much whether the machinery of that Clause would be of any assistance at all, but my colleagues and I promised to look very carefully into the position, and we will do so.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) had a case to put in regard to certain local authorities in Scotland who feared that they would be seriously affected by the burdens thrown upon them by the Bill. I should be out of Order if I attempted to deal with matters which are not covered by the Bill, so I will only say that I am very ready to look into the matters that the hon. Member touched on, about which he said he was going to write to me. I would only say, by way of comment on the figures that he put to me in regard of Bo'ness, that of course the total expenditure falling on the local authority, which he put at £6,000, could probably be treated to a large extent as capital expenditure, and the annual charge would not in those circumstances be so onerous as possibly at the first blush the local people may have imagined. The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) alluded to a matter which has not previously been brought up and the importance of which I fully recognise. He spoke of the vital importance of educating the public. We have been at work for some time considering how we can best put before the public at a very early date the things they ought to know about Civil Defence. It is no use doing so until our preparations have reached a certain stage, but we have reached a point at which, in regard to evacuation and a large number of other matters, we could with advantage take steps to inform the public in simple language what could be done. That is already in hand.
I have numerous notes, but I do not think it would make for the convenience of the House if I were to go into them in detail. I undertake to give very careful consideration to the points that have been raised. I can assure the hon. Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) that problems of mass psychology were by no means left out of account by the members of the Hailey Conference. I know that, because that was amongst the subjects


on which I myself specially laid stress in the first discussions that I had with the members of the conference.

Mr. Dunn: If there are any particular schemes in which Members are interested, particularly in Yorkshire, as referred to by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and myself, if we were directly to call the Minister's attention to them are we to take it that they will have his personal consideration?

Sir J. Anderson: I always give personal consideration to representations made to me by my colleagues in this House. That is my invariable practice. It may sometimes take a little time before I find it possible to give such representations the consideration that they merit, but I always give them personal consideration.
I make no pretension even now that this Bill is going to leave the House in a perfect condition, nor do I suggest for a moment that it represents the last word on the subject of Civil Defence. Many of its provisions have been developed to a degree of very great complexity, in an endeavour to hold the balance evenly between the different interests affected and to deal out even-handed justice all round. Even so, I do not claim that we have attained perfection in this matter. The main object of the Bill is to secure more rapid expansion on Civil Defence matters in fields in which insufficient progress has been made, partly from lack of powers, and I do not think this progress will be secured by seeking to impose a precise, meticulous network of statutory obligations. It has never been part of my policy to rely primarily on compulsory powers, enforced by penal sanctions. I have been relying, and shall continue to rely, rather on co-operation, on the readiness of employers and others responsible for taking these measures to push on and do what is necessary to afford the protection that is required.
I am glad to be able to repeat what I said on the Second Reading, that the consultations that I have had with employers, with "representatives of labour and with associations of local authorities have all encouraged me in the belief that we shall have, before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, and still more afterwards, the fullest collaboration and a very great measure of good will in carrying out its

provisions. To a large extent the object of the Bill is to provide machinery for, and to clear obstacles from the path of, those who are anxious to get on with the job. Compulsion and legal sanctions have to be there to deal with recalcitrants, but as far as possible they will be kept in reserve; and I hope that in all but a small minority of cases the necessary work will be carried out without any recourse to the machinery of compulsion.
Another main principle on which the Bill is based is that of spreading as widely as possible the burden of providing protection for the people. Government Departments, local authorities, employers of labour and owners of property, all are called upon to take their share in this enormous task of providing air-raid shelter for all who are exposed to risk, whether they are at home or are at work or are caught in the street. It is only by spreading the burden in this way that we can hope to overtake this vast task in any reasonable time. As I have said before, more than once, time is of the very essence of the matter. The work is going to be very great and it will call for steady, concentrated effort; but, with the responsibility spread as the Bill proposes to spread it, I am confident that, given good will, it is not by any means beyond our resources. When we have broken the back of this job we shall have made a very valuable addition to our defence armoury and we shall have contributed materially to the great task of building up a system of Civil Defence which will at once diminish the risk of attack and at the same time place the' country in a position confidently to withstand if unhappily it should come.
One final word about the urgency of these matters. When the Bill was first introduced we all hoped that by now it would already have been passed into law, but other immediate needs arose which have impeded its passage. As the House knows, and I believe with the approval of the House I have taken preliminary steps towards the practical administration of the provisions of the Bill without waiting for Parliament to give final approval to it as a whole. For example, the shelter code under Clause 12 has been issued in a provisional form and employers and others responsible for providing shelter have been given every encouragement to proceed to put the necessary work in


hand without waiting for the Bill to become law. So far, I have met with very little obstruction in the matter, and I have no doubt that those on whom these obligations will be laid are willing in the public interest to undertake their obligations now, before they have the force of law. I have no doubt that this willingness springs from a sense of the urgency of our needs. I trust that the same overriding sense of urgency will secure the speedy passage of the Bill through its remaining stages into law and will secure the rapid application of its provisions throughout those parts of the country which, if war should come, would be most exposed to the risk of attack.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT IN THE CHAIR.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1939.

Class III.

Orders of the Day — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONARY SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £190,707, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1940, for air raid precautionary services." — [Note5,000,000 has been voted on account.]

8.14 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I have had in the last three days to take up so much of the time of the House that I think I shall be forgiven if I cut my introductory remarks in reference to these Estimates very short. I must, however, explain in a few words the scope of the Vote which we are now taking, and also indicate the nature of the reasons which have made it necessary for the Government to put down this Vote to-day.
The gross Estimate for Air-Raid Precautionary Services for the current financial year was £42,205,907, and of this amount the Government decided that £37,000,000 should be provided from the Defence Loan. This left a net sum of £5,190,707 to be provided from voted moneys, after allowing for certain other small appropriations amounting to

£15,200. In the ordinary course, the Committee would have been asked to provide on account of this Vote a sum sufficient to cover about one-third of the gross Estimate, that is to say, about £14,000,000, but as on this occasion the total amount to be provided from voted moneys was only a little over £5,000,000, the Vote on account had to be limited to that sum. It is unfortunate although from one point of view fortunate, that within a few days the whole of that amount will be spent, and unless the Vote can be taken forthwith, I shall find myself in the unhappy position of being unable to look my creditors in the face. Thus, from my point of view, it becomes of very great importance that this Vote should be taken, and I should be grateful if the Committee would pass it to-day in order that an advance from the Defence Loan may become available immediately.
This Vote is confined to Air-Raid Precautionary Services, and does not include certain other matters for which I am responsible. In the three months that have elapsed since I addressed the Committee in connection with a Supplementary Estimate, at the end of March, substantial progress has been made The period has been one of development in the recruitment of personnel, in the training of personnel, in the issue of equipment, and still more in the building up of our Civil Defence organisation up and down the country. The very fact that we have spent already the whole of the sum voted on account testifies to the improvement that has come about in the rate of our progress in Civil Defence. The total sum in respect of which the money included in this Estimate is to be voted, that is to say, £42,000,000 to be provided for the financial year, includes a substantial provision for steel shelters, of which we hope by the end of the financial year that no fewer than 2,500,000 will have been delivered. It includes also a substantial sum for the purchase of material for the strengthening of basements. It covers the provision of an additional 15,000,000 civilian respirators, 1,300,000 protective devices for babies, and 1,500,000 respirators for small children.
Provision is made in the Estimate for the purchase during the year of more than 350,000,000 sandbags, of which more than half are being obtained from India. For fire-fighting appliances and equipment,


the provision made is for no less than £3,700,000, representing an increase of £2,500,000 over the provision for the previous year. The other main items of equipment covered by the total figure I have given are protective clothing, first-aid equipment, and emergency hospital equipment. The supply of the equipment for casualty services, although it comes under this Vote, has been organised in consultation with the Ministry of Health, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the London County Council for the very valuable assistance they have given in lending the services of their Chief Supply Officer to help in the placing of contracts for first-aid equipment and emergency hospital supplies. The great experience of the Supply Department of the London County Council has been of real value to my Department and the Ministry of Health in securing accelerated deliveries of these essential supplies.
In concluding these few introductory observations, I should like to add that a token provision has been made in the Estimate in connection with the protection of vital services and for grants to local authorities in respect of emergency water supplies. This is done in order to bring these services to the notice of the Committee. The full cost of these measures, together with that of other services covered by the provisions of the Civil Defence Bill, is not included in the present Estimate, but will be brought forward in a Supplementary Estimate which will have to be put before the Committee in the near future. I say that by way of explanation. The reason, of course, is that the legislative authority for these things has not yet been given.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to refer first to the last remark that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal. This Estimate is for a gross amount of £42,205,907. We are now told—as we had gathered from a perusal of the Estimate—that some of the items shown in it are mere token provisions which, I imagine, will be substantially exceeded during the course of the year. There are other sums, not even mentioned in the Estimate, which will arise out of the Bill with which we have temporarily parted this evening, and which will have to be considered at an early date. I do not

quite understand why it has not been possible to include those things in the Estimate, because on page 27 of the Estimates I notice that under Item H the Government have included the recoupment of certain expenditure, which it is stated:
is in some cases not covered by existing legislation at all; in others it is not so covered so far as the full recoupment proposed exceeds the percentages which could be paid under the terms of the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937.
When moving the Second Reading of the Civil Defence Bill, the Lord Privy Seal said that the first Clause was included to make an honest man of him. I am bound to say that that appears to be a very long process, and apparently we have not quite reached the end here; for I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is asking us now to sanction certain payments for which there is no legislative sanction, and I should be surprised to learn that the mere passing of this Estimate to-night would be a sufficient legislative sanction. Therefore, one must imagine that there is some legislation that we have not yet seen which the right hon. Gentleman will have to bring forward in order to deal with these matters. I imagine, for instance, that such things as the amounts of money that were paid to the London Passenger Transport Board in connection with work which among other things, included the stopping of the railway under the Thames, have been included somewhere in these figures, but that the right hon. Gentleman has no legislative sanction under which the Treasury are authorised to meet these payments. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give us some indication of the method by which the Government propose to make a completely honest man of him. We are getting on with the process and we hope that with perseverance we shall re-establish the right hon. Gentleman so that he can appear in polite society with an unblemished character.
The Committee will also expect a fuller explanation than the right hon. Gentleman has given of some of the items in this Estimate. I take first, the question of fire-fighting appliances. I find that it is for the auxiliary fire-fighting service that the greatest difficulty is being experienced in securing recruits. The difficulty is not confined to one part of the country. It is found in London, in the industrial districts, in the small towns of the South


of England and even in the large villages. I was at a meeting of the Surrey National Service Committee the other day at which the mayor of an important Surrey borough said they had exactly as much fire-fighting equipment now as they had last September. I am sure that is a common experience and that there are other districts in which, despite requests by the local authorities, the fire-fighting equipment has not been brought up to date. I have given the name of the borough privately to the right hon. Gentleman and I am willing to give it to the Committee, if he so desires. That has a most depressing effect upon recruiting. My experience of recruiting for voluntary services is that the best recruiting agent is the man who is satisfied that he is getting on with his training and the worst is the man who goes round saying "It is true I have put my name down for the fire-fighting service but we have no equipment, nobody can be trained and it will be months before we get a chance." If fire-fighting equipment is as essential as we have been led to believe, then it is also essential that these appliances should be supplied without delay.
I should also like to ask some questions about the quality of the equipment. I heard very severe criticisms of the quality of the hose supplied last September. I put down a question regarding the equipment supplied to one urban district. The answer was that it was admittedly defective and that it had been taken away and replaced. The irony of the situation, "however, was that it was taken away from the district during the emergency period and had the emergency developed, a serious state of affairs might have arisen in that area. I am told that some of the hose supplied was exceedingly defective and that there was no evidence that any care had been taken in its selection and despatch. I understand that complaints with regard to the hose were prevalent over a wide area. I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department has done anything to ensure that hose and other perishable equipment for this purpose, will not be taken out of old stock but will be new material and will be properly examined before being sent out to local authorities.
The next point which I desire to raise concerns the air-raid precautions civilian training schools which, apparently, now

come under the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I see they figure in the first item in this Estimate. When these schools were started, they dealt with anti-gas measures only. They were in fact known as anti-gas schools. When the question of these schools was first before the House of Commons I suggested that a disproportionate amount of attention was being given to anti-gas methods in view of the probable extent of the use of gas in the event of an air raid. I understand that a much wider curriculum is now in force in these schools and that gas has been relegated to its proper position in the scale. Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that the important people in local administration who received instruction in these schools when they were almost exclusively concerned with anti-gas methods, have had an opportunity of taking refresher courses and of making themselves reasonably well acquainted with the whole range of subjects now taught? It is clear from the Civil Defence Bill that Government Departments attach at least as. much importance to the danger from blast splinters and incendiary bombs, as to the danger of gas attack. I think there is general recognition of the fact that gas will probably be a subordinate feature in any attack. Unless they receive refresher courses, some of those who attended these schools at the outset, will be deficient in the training necessary for dealing with enemy attack on the lines which it is now expected to take.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of respirators which he proposed to acquire in the current year. I would ask him how many of these represent replacements and how many were supplied to people who had not already received respirators. I imagine both these figures are included In the total of 15,000,000. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman is not 15,000,000 short on the distribution already made, on the basis of one respirator to each person. People may desire to have a change of clothes, but from the comments made upon them I do not think many people are likely to ask for a change of respirators. I hope the Minister will tell us how many of these are replacements and whether the number is regarded by his Department as adequate, in view of the probable wastage. Further, has he any idea of how many of the respirators


originally issued have become unfit for use? He has taken powers during the year to deal with people who dispose of their respirators or misuse them. Does he contemplate taking any action in that matter? If so, can he say what proportion of the existing respirators will still be suitable for use at the end of the period covered by this Estimate?
I desire next to mention the question which is dealt with under Item O in the Estimates, namely, grants to local authorities in respect to emergency water supplies. Here we have only a token figure. All the deputations from the County Councils Association to the Ministry of Health with regard to evacuation, which I have attended, have regarded this question as of the first importance to local authorities in dealing with evacuation problems. Unless some very early steps are taken, a very great deal of the accommodation that has been regarded as available will in fact be unsuitable for prolonged occupation by the evacuated population. I notice that most of it is regarded as being in connection with fire services, and so I suppose the proper person to whom to address remarks with regard to water supplies for evacuation purposes would be the Minister of Health, so I will not say any more on that matter at this stage, except to say that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that sufficient pressure is kept up on the Minister of Health to ensure that this point shall receive his early attention.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: He ought to have been here.

Mr. Ede: I see that evacuation is mentioned under Item H, but I gather that the costs that we are asked to bear here are not costs for future evacuation so much as costs for the evacuation that did not take place last September. This is bringing into this financial year the accounts that we on this side asked should be considered during the time that the House was in Recess last October. We are at last getting the bill in, but it is- impossible on the figures here to ascertain what anything that was then incurred cost. If you look at what is lumped under H, you will find the most heterogenous mass of expenditure:
Expenditure incurred during the emergency of September, 1938, in connection with (1) measures of evacuation.
I should have thought it would have been more in keeping with the respect due

to the Committee of Supply that we should have been told what that figure was, because that is a completely distinct item from those that follow. Then there is:
Losses incurred by local authorities on the disposal of surplus timber and other materials.
That had nothing to do with evacuation, but was for the people who were not evacuated, and I think we are entitled to know what action was finally taken in respect of those local authorities which declined to pay some of the bills handed to them for timber and other materials which they acquired at that period. There was a general feeling throughout the House that where excessive prices had been demanded from local authorities, the fullest possible support should be given to them in resisting the extortion that was attempted to be practised on them. Then there is:
Repayment to contractors for out-of-pocket expenses incurred through suspension of contracts whilst engaged in trench-digging for local authorities.
How much did that represent? Apparently this is some part of the £200,000, but I think the Committee is entitled to have these very miscellaneous expenditures itemised. It almost reminds me of the story of the lady who looked through her boy's school pocket-money accounts, and said, "I am glad to see the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel every week." He said, "What ever makes you think that?" "Well, I see an item every week ' S.P.G.' and a few shillings and pence." "Oh," he said, "that is not the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; that is ' Sundries, probably grub '." I suggest that some of these things here were "Sundries, probably graft," not graft by the right hon. Gentleman—we are making an honest man of him—but graft by some of these people who seized the opportunity, by increased prices and other means, to attempt to turn the country's necessity to their own profit. I think we ought to be told how much those contractors managed to get over this matter. Then there is the payment, to which I have already alluded, to the London Passenger Transport Board
in respect of emergency construction works carried out at the request of the Government.
I think it is the more necessary that we should have this information, because it is


clear from the remainder of the note which I have already quoted that these sums are in; the main expenditure for which this House has given no legislative sanction at all, and I hope that at some stage in these Estimates, if not to-night, we may have the information—perhaps when we deal with these Estimates on the Report stage. Clearly an item of this kind ought to be submitted to us in some detail. Item I, "Protection of Vital Services," which again is a token item, is a thing on which I think we ought to have some further information. Will the Departments concerned take some steps to check these items, to make sure that the money is spent only on these essential works to maintain continuity of supply and that items that would have been incurred in any event by some of these public utility undertakers will not be smuggled in and carried through at the public expense?
There is one other thing to which I have to draw attention, and that is the fact that although this item totals £42,000,000 an appropriation-in-aid of £37,015,200 is brought in, and of that sum the £37,000,000 is to be provided by loan. It is true that it does not fall on this financial year, but sooner or later the whole of this £42,000,000, with the exception of the odd £15,200, has to be met out of public funds. It is some measure of the extent to which not merely this year's revenue but the future resources of the country are being mortgaged to deal with the situation that confronts us internationally. I think it adds point to the very eloquent words that were used by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) in his speech on the Third Reading of the Bill. If we could have had this £37,000,000 to deal, not with these services, but with something that would have made the people of this country healthier, better, more intelligent, it is almost impossible to think of the advantages that might have accrued to us. It represents some of the waste that human folly is compelling us to incur. There does not appear to be much interest on the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House in these matters, because only his Parliamentary private secretary appears to think it worth while to attend on our deliberations, but after my hon. Friends on this side have expressed their misgivings and hopes with regard to these

matters, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer the questions that I have put to him, because, vast as these figures are, we think it is essential that the closest possible economy should be observed in their expenditure and that every scrutiny should be given to this vast expenditure, which, unfortunately, we all have to regard as being so essential.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) declared that the best advertisement for volunteers was the man who, after he had volunteered, had found that there was work for him to do and the tools with which to do it. If he is doing nothing for weeks on end he begins to get uneasy and to feel that, after all, the work is not as important as it is made out to be. I have been sitting with an A.R.P. committee since those committees were formed in the local areas. It is a committee numbering about 20, and we have been sitting month after month and suggesting different schemes and asking for this and that. Representatives of that committee have: gone to the joint area committee and have come back to us to say, "You can't have it. The county council say that you can't have these things." In some areas in South Yorkshire they are getting very discouraged because they can see no progress made. There are two urban district councils in the Staincross area, and both have asked the area joint committee to allow them to have fixed first-aid posts. This will be a very small matter to the Lord Privy Seal, but it is not a small matter to these two towns. They are so situated that there is a rural area between them, and the roads in rural areas are not always of the best, and the transport facilities between the two towns leave something to be desired.
The area committee think those towns. ought to have fixed first-aid posts, but the county council, on instructions from London, have stated that both cannot have them. One of those towns is to have a fixed post and the other is to have a mobile unit. I feel in my soul that, after London, South Yorkshire will be the next area at which an enemy will strike. I see the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is looking at me. The enemy are not likely to come from the-Irish Channel or from America, they will come over the east coast.

Mr. Tinker: I was only looking at my hon. Friend in interest, and was not in any way objecting to what he was saying.

Mr. Griffiths: Before they get to Lancashire they have to cross Yorkshire, and they will not travel to the west coast to do damage until they have first done some damage on the east coast, and I am concerned about South Yorkshire, about Sheffield and about Leeds. For the moment I am putting the case of these two urban areas, and it is an example which could be multiplied by the score. If anything should happen in Roystone, which has a population of 8,000, and there is only a mobile first-aid unit, injured persons will have to be transferred to the other town in the dark and along roads which are neither first-class nor second-class roads. We ask that there shall be a fixed first-aid post in each of those towns, but the Minister says, "No, you cannot have it." This is not something I have read about, because I have been on this committee, and we have repeatedly asked for a first-aid post. I have in my hand now a letter from the air-raid officer over a population of 100,000 people telling us that we cannot have a fixed first-aid post at Roystone. There are 80 volunteers in that little town for this one section of work alone, and it only requires 60 volunteers to start a fixed first-aid post. A mobile post calls for only 16 volunteers, and these 80 volunteers in Roystone are saying, "What are we here for? Only 16 of us are required and 80 of us have volunteered." I hope the Lord Privy Seal will see into this matter—or that some of his lieutenants will do so. Of course he has a tremendous task, but so long as he is at the head of the Department they will not bother about the people under him, but will say that it is his responsibility.
I should like to ask, further, what has happened to the steel shelters and why we have not got any in that area. Is it because I spoke about them some months ago in not very eulogistic terms and said they were not much good? Although I may have said they were not much good, I should like to know how many of them there are in South Yorkshire. I will bet there are not half a dozen. There is not a steel shelter among these 100,000 people in the Staincross area. Our folks do not know what the shelters are. They have never seen one. I ask the Lord Privy

Seal to see that we get some steel shelters in the Staincross area. We are not in the same position as some of the people in London. They have been falling out in London as to who is to have the shelter, whether the people who are upstairs or those who are down in the cellar. In my district everybody lives in his own house and has a little bit of garden and can fix his shelter without any row or bother with the next-door neighbour or someone living above him or below him. A lot of miners who are out of work are living in these houses, and they will put in the shelters and it will not cost anything. They will do the work in, shall I say, their spare time—and I hope the Minister of Labour will not then stop something from their unemployment pay because they are working. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that matter into consideration.
I would like to raise just one other point. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was talking about some people getting refresher courses in the anti-gas school; I am not so much concerned about refresher courses, but I want our chaps to get the first courses. They have not had the first courses yet. We have some men who have been ready for 18 months and have been waiting patiently to go to the school at Easingwold, and they keep saying, "When are we going?" and I have had to say, "Well, I don't know." I therefore hope that before my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields gets any refresher courses for the people round about London who have had the first courses, we shall get our first courses before they get their second. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman's Department will speed up this matter. I will not say anything more, because I think I have said about enough.

Mr. Kirkwood: You have said about enough to get a reply.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I want to say one or two things and to get some reply and some explanation from the Minister about them. My hon. Friend has just been referring to Roystone and Easingwold and asking that people should get training courses before other people have refresher courses, but, in spite of that, I think it would be well if people who have already had the early


training course could now have additional courses which are more up-to-date and which are considered to be necessary. I had the very interesting experience of going to Falfield and seeing the training courses given there. I considered them to be very efficient and very useful, and I still consider them so, but, as in all other branches of A.R.P. work, new experiences have arisen and have taught us the necessity of further experiment. At the present time there are some other things that we consider it advisable to do. They have been able to give later students at Falfield a more elaborate and useful course than was given to the earlier students, and I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of those earlier students being given a similar opportunity, even at their own expense and in their own time, to become more efficient than they are now.
I was glad to hear the Lord Privy Seal pay a tribute to the Supply Department of the London County Council, in which I served for a number of years. I know all the people in the most responsible positions there, including the one who is most responsible, the supply officer, and I say without hesitation that, in spite of the fact that I have left them, they are still a very efficient body. Another thing in regard to which I want some attention to be paid came out in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). He gave an illustration regarding the quality of material which has been supplied for fire hose and which is only one of many examples. The hose was largely useless. It is equally true to say that many other supplies are being provided which are, if not useless, certainly not up to the standard that we have a right to expect. That may be due to the fact that rush work is not done as efficiently as it otherwise might be, but, in spite of that fact, I think the condition of affairs to which I have referred is due largely to the inspectorate, although proficient, not being sufficient in number. I suggest that the Department should enlarge the inspectorate, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give attention to that matter. There are many proficient men available, so that the quality can be raised in order that, if ever the time should come—and we hope that it will not—to put these services into operation,

we shall find that the material which will have to be used will be in every way efficient.
I do not want to say very much about surplus timber. I said on a previous occasion that when the timber came to be sold there would be a loss, but the right hon. Gentleman did not think that that would be the case. There must be a loss on timber or on anything else when it is resold in normal circumstances. The only other thing which I wish to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman—although it might not be necessary to do so, because I think it is obvious and that he will see it—is in regard to recruitment, which is not at the present time in all ways satisfactory, in spite of the fact that more than 1,500,000 men have volunteered and are giving their services freely in all branches of air-raid precautionary work. There are still material deficiencies in some of the services, and this has already been said in regard to the fire brigade. I should have thought that the fire brigade was a popular service, and it would be so if the conditions were satisfactory. Young men would be very anxious to get into the fire brigade and to receive the training that the auxiliary fire services get so that ultimately, when vacancies occur in normal fire services, some of them who have equipped themselves may have a chance to become members of the ordinary fire service in one of the big towns. The disheartening thing is the lack of material with which to work. Nothing is more calculated to prevent people from volunteering for the service than the fact that when they go down to the quarters, as many of them do night after night, they do not find the equipment to enable them to do their job properly.
I know many men who are getting tired of waiting, but what matters is not so much that, as the fact that they say to other people that they are getting tired. Had equipment been ready, and been sufficient and efficient, in the early days of recruiting for the fire service, that service could have been filled two or three times over, but the equipment was not there. Men went down night after night and got such drill as was possible from the instructors without the equipment that was necessary fully to train them, and, as a consequence the drill, such as it was, was often repeated over and over again ad nauseam until the men


were tired of being drilled in things which they already knew very well. There happened what must happen in such circumstances. They said: "What is the use of going down there? I know all about that. I am not going down to-night." Instead of going there they went to some other place, where somebody said: "Why aren't you going down to the fire service?" They replied," There is no equipment," and the effect of saying that was that recruitment almost entirely stopped.
I know that there must be difficulties in providing large quantities of equipment, but I cannot help thinking that a large measure of blame attaches to those who art: responsible. I have heard of equipment coming in in parts, which it was utterly impossible to use because the other parts were not there. That is a thing which ought not to occur. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to pay special attention to the effect that lack of equipment is having on recruits. I want to see these services brought to the highest degree of efficiency, and would do anything I could to achieve that object. I have put forward these suggestions, not in any critical spirit, but as constructive suggestions, because my experience teaches me that recruitment is being stopped by the lack of those things which the recruits require to make them in every way efficient.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: There are two points that I should like to put to the Committee before the right hon. Gentleman replies. In recent months I have been in close association with the air-raid precautions organisation in Scotland, and I put these two points, not wishing in the slightest degree to be critical of the right hon. Gentleman, or, indeed, of his organisation, but rather to dwell on the fact that in the last year there has been created, almost out of nothing, a huge organisation of 1,500,000 people who have come forward voluntarily, without any compulsion and without any payment, and who, in one way and another, are prepared to give service in the event of an emergency, t am sure it is good that we should not dwell upon little pettifogging criticisms, that we should not cavil where there are breaks in the chain, but that we should rather stand back now and again and agree that we have made immense strides

in creating a huge organisation which, should a war emergency arise, would undoubtedly, even as it stands now, save the lives of hundreds of thousands of our fellow-citizens.
It is exceedingly difficult, as we are placed, to separate air-raid precautions into various compartments. If we want to talk about food, we find that that is a question for the Board of Trade, and we cannot deal with it on this Estimate. If we want to deal with water, it is a matter for the Minister of Health. The same thing applies to evacuation. There is the great problem of shifting hundreds of thousands of women and children out of vulnerable areas into reception areas. It is impossible to deal with one aspect of air-raid precautions without dealing with the others. If you evacuate 500,000 people, you must provide food, water, transport, medical aids, and so on.
Under Sub-head O the right hon. Gentleman has a token Vote, "Grants to local authorities in respect of emergency water supplies." Let us see if we can help him to assist his colleague the Minister of Health and his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland in what is the most vital matter in the whole structure. The most vital matter is not the provision of shelter. The most immediate need, if you are going to shift women and children out of vulnerable areas and preserve the moral of the civil population, as the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do, by evacuating them to areas called reception areas, is that in those reception areas there should be a supply of water. It is no use having paper schemes. You may go to a village and ask the people how many they can take, how many houses or how many rooms they have. You get a beautiful picture showing that, say, 250 women and children can be taken by this village, and that is put down on the record; but these records do not mean anything at all unless in that village you can supply water to the 250 extra women and children whom you are going to take there in the event of a war emergency. A war emergency might well occur in the summer or autumn, when water supplies are short. The problem would be far different in the winter or in the spring.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to remember that in many areas evacuation will not function at all unless there can be guaranteed a supply of fresh water


for the additional population. It is perfectly impossible to provide that everywhere within the limits of a short-term programme, but there are areas where emergency pipe-lines could be laid down now from existing water supplies. I have in mind one area where there are four county councils and 18 municipal authorities which are endeavouring to provide in common—a good Socialist maxim—the necessary works in connection with the existing water supply. That is a big thing, but even if we only get that, we shall get something out of the war emergency. It is not only the maintenance of existing water supplies, but the maintenance of the existing personnel that is required, and here the principle of cooperation should be brought in.
What about the reception areas where we have no water supplies now? Cannot we encourage the local authorities, by financial assistance, to run pipes quickly into these areas—with meters attached, if you like—so that, for the first time, in our rural areas we shall have an adequate supply of fresh pure water. Here is a 10 token Vote for emergency water supplies to local authorities in vulnerable areas. I take it that what is meant is—the Lord Privy Seal will correct me if I am wrong—that he is going to aid, say London, Sheffield, and perhaps Glasgow to get added water for fire-fighting. But about one-third of the population will be away from those areas. I was in France last September, and I saw Paris evacuate itself. It did not wait for any organised arrangements; one-third of Paris had gone in the weekend. That is what you will find happening in London, Sheffield and other vulnerable areas. The people are going to areas where there is already an acute water shortage. People are scheduled to be taken to Wigtownshire and I have read that there is already such a shortage of water that they cannot supply the people who are in Wigtownshire now. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, while there is yet time, to take the widest view he can: to give assistance to approved schemes, provided that local authorities will co-operate in running pipe-lines into other rural areas, so that, if an emergency should come and we are required to evacuate 500,000 women and children, we shall not find chaos and disaster owing to a shortage of water supplies.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Johnston: There is one other matter to which I would call the attention of the Lord Privy Seal. When this Bill is the law of the land we shall find that proprietors of commercial properties will be adding their demand to the existing demand on labour and material for providing shelters. We are already short of certain classes of workmen and material. We are already in danger of seeing prices rise for certain classes of material. I would make this prophecy. If the right hon. Gentleman permits an added demand for millions of pounds' worth of material to be made on an existing shortened market, he will see a price jump in materials and in construction which will prevent anything being done. We have already huge demands on our labour market. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman of a housing scheme where the week before last 25 per cent, of the joiners went away to work for a contractor at a munition establishment because the munition establishment contractor was offering 2d. an hour more than the contractor on the housing scheme. Please do not imagine that that will prove to be an isolated incident, and that it will not apply to cement workers, plasterers, bricklayers, everybody.
If the week after next or the month after next, as a result of the Civil Defence Act, there is a sudden demand for £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 worth of fresh construction in the way of cement sheltering, steel sheltering, or any other kind of sheltering, unless we are very careful about the cost of construction in these matters we shall inevitably see a price jump which will render production actually impossible. Let me try to prove that. If it costs £8 per head now to provide a shelter, and the proprietor of a factory or commercial building is able to provide it at that figure, leaving the question of Government assistance out of account, will he be able to provide it if it costs £12 or £20 per head? He simply will not be able to do it. Some of these are going to be only paper schemes, without reality, unless we face up to the need for drastic measures for dealing with this problem. I am not trying to make propaganda for Socialism, but what is called the law of supply and


demand makes what I am prophesying inevitable.
Last night we agreed in this House to make it obligatory upon the proprietor of a tenant dwelling or flats to provide shelter where 50 per cent, of the people demanded them. He might be able to provide that shelter when the cost is £8 per head; but will he be able to do so if the cost is £12 or £20 per head? I say that he will not. Unless we take steps to prevent price-jumping and profiteering the right hon. Gentleman will see his air-raid precautions rendered very largely nugatory. We should encourage the iron makers to get their experts on the job quickly. Why should iron workers be working two days a week only, and the steel industry three shifts a day? Steel prices are at their maximum, and steel is almost impossible to get. You should get the iron experts in the iron industry on the job quickly and enable us to provide some relief in the demand on the steel market. That is one method of preventing a price jump. I know the right hon. Gentleman has had his attention called to what might have been regarded as an attempt at a remarkable price jump by the Cement Federation, but I do not want to go into the details of that case. We on this side of the Committee will have no mercy whatever upon any Minister, or group of Ministers, or any Government which sits down tamely and allows groups controlling materials necessary for the life and well-being of this nation to jump their prices in this hour of emergency.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman earlier in his remarks referred to bricklayers who were receiving a trade union wage going to another firm for higher wages.

Mr. Johnston: I began by instancing what was happening when people were permitted to bribe workers by offering them extra money. Surely by saying that I indicated what my view was. My concern is to see that the common people of this country get protection, that the workers get a living wage, but it is our duty to say here—and I notice that the hon. Gentleman never interrupted me until I began to attack the capitalist group—that we on this side of the House in the hour of a war emergency shall take every possible step to stop the exploitation of this nation, and the working

classes of this nation, by groups of monopolists who, under the present capitalist system, are in possession of the necessary raw materials. I know the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the difficulty. He is well aware that it would be fatal to this Government and this nation to permit it. If it is permitted there will be civil insurrection in this country. People in this country will not tolerate again what they tolerated from 1914 to 1918.
I sit down by saying this for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman who interrupted me. During the last War the trade union leaders, led by Robert Smillie, went in deputation to His Majesty's Government, and offered on behalf of all the workers of this nation not to ask for a penny increase in wages during the War if the Government would stop the profiteers from raising prices, and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, refused that request. The result was that week after week prices rose against the poorest of the poor, people with fixed incomes, widows and orphans and soldiers' wives, but War debts mounted sky high. These were fictitious figures. The nation was almost brought to its knees by the gang whom we permitted to do it in the last War. And we wound up the War with a Royal Commission, not appointed by us, but by the other side, a Commission into War fortunes, who proved, to the knowledge of the Inland Revenue authorities, that there were people sitting with £4,000,000,000 in their pockets, after paying Excess Profits Duty and Surtax, that they did not have at the beginning of the War.

Mr. Kirkwood: Shame. The lamp-post for them.

Mr. Johnston: It is my duty to say now, at the request of my colleagues on the Front Bench, that we will not tolerate for five minutes the profiteering that went on in the last War. I repeat it because I want no misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman to my personal knowledge is as keenly interested as I am in stopping this, but I ask him to believe that in his methods of stopping it he must be drastic and ruthless. When he sees an admitted shortage coming of an important raw material he should cast his mind round quickly and get his assistants on the job quickly to provide alternative sources of supply. If it should happen


that, despite all, there is a tendency to price-jumping—we know that it has begun already—we beg the right hon. Gentleman to come to this House for powers, and he will get them gladly and willingly from this side of the House, in the interest of the life of this nation, to stop the profiteering which otherwise can ruin us.

9.33 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: I will do my best to deal within a reasonable space of time with at least the most important of the points that have been raised. First, let me try to give the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) information on various points for which he has asked. The hon. Gentleman asked about the legislative authority for payments amounting to £200,000, I think, included in this Estimate in respect of the September crisis. I am advised that the answer to that question is this. The legislative authority—the only legislative authority—for those payments, which relate entirely to what is past, will be given in due course by the Appropriation Act. As regards the details of the amount in question, I am in a position to give the hon. Gentleman some information, and I will gladly supplement that information if he should so desire. The total provided under the sub-head is £200,000. The evacuation expenses included there were in respect of payments to certain special schools and voluntary organisations for organising the evacuation of certain special classes, for example, the blind, and the total amount under that head was quite small. I am told it was not more than a few hundred pounds.

Mr. Ede: Does that mean less than £1,000?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, when I say a few hundreds, I mean less than £1,000, but I should like to verify the figure. I have had very little time in which to look at these details,. but to the best of my belief that item in the total accounts for less than £1,000. Payments to the London Passenger Transport Board were approximately £25,000. The major amount in this total of £200,000 was in respect of the reimbursement which His Majesty's Government undertook to local authorities of the cost of unused timber and corrugated iron, which, at the re-

quest of the Government, local authorities secured as a matter of urgency, and the Government undertook to bear the whole cost of the unused material. The actual total for that last item is not at present ascertainable, because unused material is still being disposed of on behalf of the Government, and we do not quite know what item of revenue will have to be taken into account in respect of that disposal. That is all the information that I am in a position to give to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McEntee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the bulk of the material has been sold to local authorities who may require it or to private contractors?

Sir J. Anderson: I cannot answer that question at the moment, as I do not know. The bulk of the material is timber, and timber has not been largely used for shelter purposes since the September crisis.

Mr. Ede: Has the right hon. Gentleman the figure for the repayment to contractors for that part of the expense due to suspension of contracts?

Sir J. Anderson: I am afraid that I have not, but I will endeavour to get it. I did try to ascertain through the usual channels what particular points would be raised so that I could be supplied with the information, and I did not in fact receive notice in regard to any of these matters. I do not say this by way of complaint at all, but in explanation of my inability to give all the information asked for. I now have the item of expenses which completes the information for which he asked in regard to the £200,000. The repayment to contractors amounts to not more than £6,000.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) had a good deal to say about deficiencies in fire-fighting equipment. I would be the last to contend that we have yet by any means made up the total shortage which has to be made up. I have never suggested to this House that we could hope to do better than substantially complete our programme some time in the course of this year. It follows that we are at this moment still short of equipment, but the position is nothing like as unsatisfactory as what the hon. Gentleman told the


House would seem to imply. I would like first to deal with the specific case that he quoted of a certain borough in the south of England. If I understood him aright, he said that the mayor of that borough had informed him quite positively within the last few days that the borough was in no better position in respect of fire-fighting equipment than it was last September.
I will give the hon. Gentleman and the Committee the actual facts. The total amount of fire-fighting equipment which the Department has up to the present undertaken to supply to that borough is seven large trailer pumps and 23 light trailer pumps. The first allocation in respect of that total, representing 22 per cent. of the total, was one large and five light trailer pumps. The large pump was despatched in November, two light pumps in October, three more in March of this year, and the bulk of the other equipment required in connection with these pumps has also been delivered. A second allocation of two large pumps and four light pumps was made later. The whole of that allocation was despatched in March. That brought the numbers delivered, as far as pumps of various kinds are concerned, up to 40 per cent of the total approved allocation. All the accessories required in connection with the second allocation of pumps have also been delivered. That is a very different picture from that which the hon. Gentleman gave to-day. Moreover, the Department will shortly make a further allocation which will give that borough 85 per cent. of its full allotment in respect of large trailers, and 60 per cent. in respect of light trailers. That is by no means an unsatisfactory position, and certainly the number of appliances delivered are more by far than are required to provide all necessary training facilities.
I think it is the fact—though I say frankly there are still large deficiencies required to be made up—that a good many of the complaints one still hears, if not based on incomplete information, relate to some period in the past. They do not relate to the position at the present moment. I can give the Committee, without taking up too much time, further information about the equipment position in general. Deliveries for the whole of the country up to a fairly recent date were 301 heavy and extra heavy pumps,

1,770 large trailer pumps, and no fewer than 4,000 light trailer pumps. These are very substantial deliveries. I do not myself think that, apart from isolated cases, there is really any ground now for the suggestion that, as far as pumps are concerned, deliveries are so far short of requirements that the necessary training facilities cannot be provided.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I gave him a week ago the complete statement on this matter which I repeated in the House to-night, and his mention of the matter this evening is the first answer I have received on the point. Had he given me the statement that 40 per cent. had in fact been delivered, I would have checked it with the mayor, but I understand that in respect of that borough, which is not very far from London, 60 per cent. of the equipment still has to be sent.

Sir J. Anderson: Sixty per cent. of the total mobilisation equipment. If I had not been so busily engaged in the last few days I would have communicated with the hon. Gentleman before now giving him these particulars. I have taken the particulars from a letter now awaiting despatch to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ede: Yes, but I have not got it.

Sir J. Anderson: At any rate, the statement made by the mayor seems to have been not wholly accurate.
Certain criticisms were made by the hon. Member, and I think also by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) in regard to the quality of hose supplied. The suggestion was made that the hose might have been taken from old stock. I do not think there is any foundation for that suggestion. The hose in question was produced by manufacturers who have recently taken up the production of that particular material, and a certain quantity of the hose that was first delivered by these producers was undoubtedly defective. The defects were disclosed partly on inspection and partly on delivery. I have every reason to believe that the position in regard to the supply of hose is now very much more satisfactory, but I do not conceal from the Committee the fact that one of my greatest anxieties in connection with fire-fighting equipment arises in connection with the supply of hose, which we require in such enormous quantities.
A question was also raised about the training schools. I was asked whether attention was still being given, to a disproportionate extent, to gas training. I think not. The curricula at these schools have been revised in order to give proper attention to training against incendiary bombs and against high explosives. In regard to what certain speakers said about refresher courses, it is the intention of the Department to arrange refresher courses for people who took that course under the old curriculum when gas was the main feature; but we wish first to give facilities for the training of people from certain areas which have not yet been able to have their people trained at these schools. The importance of refresher courses will not be overlooked.
The question of emergency water supplies has also been raised. The emergency supplies in this Estimate are all for fire-fighting purposes and not for rural water supplies which would serve only to supplement the normal equipment of the country. I can only say in reply to the point raised by the right hon. Member for West Stirling that I will bring what he said to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I entirely agree as to the importance of making proper provision in such areas for public health matters in general, including water supplies, sanitary arrangements and arrangements for dealing with epidemics, outbreaks of illness, and so on. These matters are all very important and come within the sphere of my right hon. Friend.
I was asked about vital services included under Sub-head I, and whether appropriate steps would be taken to check claims. The answer is that most certainly all claims that are made will be carefully checked by the appropriate Department. All the expenses in question which the hon. Member has in mind are relevant to the provisions of the Bill which has just left this House, and are covered by schemes which have to be submitted. Negotiations are proceeding between the public utility undertakers and the Departments concerned, and the claims which will come forward in due course will be carefully checked before grants are paid. I think that practically covers the points that were put to me by the hon. Member, except the point in regard to respirators. He asked me

whether I could give any estimate of the number of respirators already delivered which were assumed to be damaged and would require replacement. We are, as I have already explained, engaged in building up a substantial central reserve of respirators. Part of that reserve, to the extent of 2,000,000 to 3,000,000, will, it is assumed, be required to replace respirators which may have been damaged. The remaining part of the reserve will be held permanently to meet future contingencies. When that reserve has been built up, we intend to complete the distribution of respirators in those few areas, the less vulnerable areas, which have not yet had their complete allocation.
Now I pass to the speech of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). I paid careful attention to what he said about the position in the parts of South Yorkshire to which he referred. He was dealing in the main with the provision of first-aid posts, which falls within the sphere of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. As far as I could gather the position from what the hon. Member said, it seemed to me that probably his complaint lay rather against the county council than against any central Department. I will, however, see that the matter is looked into and that a suitable communication is sent to the hon. Member. I recognise that if volunteers come forward in considerable numbers and then find that no use is being made of their services the effect must be very discouraging, and that is a situation that we ought to do everything we can to avoid.
The hon. Member for West Waltham-stow dealt with several points on which I have already touched, such as the refresher courses and the condition of fire hose. He also urged that the Department should employ more people as inspectors, to ensure that the material supplied is properly examined and that defective material is immediately rejected. I will look into that point. I am under the impression that we have available an adequate number of inspectors, but it may be that as supplies come forward in larger quantities there will be some need to supplement our resources.

Mr. McEntee: If there had been an adequate number of inspectors the incident referred to, which is only one of


several, in regard to the quality of fire hose supplied, would not have occurred.

Sir J. Anderson: With due respect to the hon. Member, I think that particular instance would have occurred, because that hose was subject to inspection. The defects developed after delivery and could not have been tested in the ordinary course of routine.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the point I raised about steel shelters?

Sir J. Anderson: I apologise to the hon. Member. He raised the question of steel shelters and seemed to be under the impression that, because he had made some disparaging remarks about steel shelters, parts of the area of the country in which he is interested have been left out of account in regard to allocation. I can reassure him straight away on that point. The reason why shelters have not been supplied to that part of the country is that it does not come within the specified areas, and shelters are being distributed in priority to the more vulnerable areas. Although we have secured the delivery of 650,000 steel shelters, that is rather less than one-fourth of the total supply at which we are aiming. There must necessarily still be portions of the country without any allocation of these steel shelters. The right hon. Member for West Stirling dealt with the question of the control of prices. I take no exception at all to what he said in regard to the danger of increased prices and the necessity of doing everything that can be done to guard against that danger. If I seemed to be shaking my head it was simply because I had, in regard to the matter to which he was referring—the price of concrete and brick—already taken measures which I hope will be effective in ensuring that there will be no increase in price. Indeed, I have received a firm assurance from those who control the production of concrete and bricks that the present price will be maintained.
As regards the suggestion that we should cast about for new materials, I can only say that since the point was brought to my notice the Department have been considering carefully the possibility of using cast iron, and two of these cast iron shelters are going to be subjected to practical tests at Shoebury-ness as soon as we can make the necessary arrangements. The suggestion that

cast iron might be used as a material for strutting basements had to be rejected on examination because of the liability of that material to break on sudden shock. The Department is also considering the possibility of using iron for certain other components of the basement shelter design. Generally on that question I would. say that I regard the provision of dispersed shelters, which I described in the course of the proceedings on the Civil Defence Bill the other day, as offering this great advantage, that supplies can be increased without involving the risk of suddenly enhancing the price to a much greater extent than if we were concentrating on a more heavy type of construction.
I regard it as of the utmost importance that we should secure shelter for the largest number in the shortest possible time. In regard to the concrete and brick shelters we are already providing against any increase in price of materials; and in regard to the standardised type of pill box shelter, the putting of the thing together is made as simple as possible, and I hope that by these means we shall be able to provide shelter on a very large scale, for people who are living in circumstances which render a steel shelter unsuitable, without any increased cost. In regard to certain types of communal shelters, by suitable arrangements with the firms which produce the materials for such shelters I hope again to be able to a large extent to avoid any increased cost. I am very much alive to the importance of avoiding by any means a sudden enhancement of prices at a time when there might be a concentrated demand for shelter materials after the passing into law of the Civil Defence Bill, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will do everything I can in the public interest to see that no unwarrantable increase in price takes place.

Mr. Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to expedite the tests at Shoeburyness and elsewhere?

Sir J. Anderson: I will do the best I can, but there is a question of priority and at Shoeburyness there is only a limited area available. I have been trying to secure an area which would be entirely available to my Department for these tests, and I hope I am on the point of succeeding, but it is not an easy matter to find an area which has a sufficiently


unoccupied surface to make it safe to undertake these tests with high explosives. I will do what I can. I think I have covered most of the points which have been made and I hope that the Estimate may now be accepted.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [13th June] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on the Solicitors Bill [Lords'] be now considered. — [Mr, James Stuart.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Three Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords, to consider the Solicitors Bill [Lords]. — [Mr. James Stuart.]

Committee nominated of. —Major Milner, Sir George Mitcheson, and Sir Herbert Williams.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Two be the quorum. — [Mr. J. Stuart.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — SPAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Major Sir James Edmondson.]

10.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I want at once to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for his courtesy in coming here to-night. I know that I am depriving him of one of the few short nights we get but, nevertheless, I am providing him with the somewhat congenial task of explaining yet another instance of Italian undertakings which are not fulfilled. We on this side of the House have certainly by now grown well accustomed to hearing the right hon.

Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs explaining away and condoning and passing over instance after instance of Italian bad faith in matters relating to the work of the Non-intervention Committee, the war in Spain and the Anglo-Italian Agreement. In anything that I have to say about this question I do not wish to make any charges of bad faith against General Franco, who I think is not directly concerned in it. He is, no doubt very naturally and properly, doing the best he can for his country. In fact, if any charge of bad faith is to be levelled it is to be levelled at the British Government in respect of the ambiguity of their replies and statements in the House.
I understand, from answers which have already been given, that the Foreign Office view is that the Government cannot help the giving or selling of Italian war material to General Franco and in any case Italian war material constitutes perhaps less of a danger if left in Spain than if taken back to Italy. I take a completely realist view of the matter. I am not worrying about a lot of secondhand and possibly worn-out equipment of an unimportant nature, but I do not think that argument would apply in the case of heavy artillery and tanks. After all, it is an easy thing to transport men, but not such an easy undertaking to transport heavy material, and I can imagine that it might be very convenient indeed if the head of the Italian Government should be in a position in which he could transport men quite easily to Spain knowing that they would find there a great deal of the heavy equipment and material that they might need.
Apart from that side of the question, I think there are very serious matters of principle also involved. If the Italian Government, as we are told, did mention during the course of the Anglo-Italian negotiations the possibility of the sale or gift of Italian war material to Spain one can hardly make any charge of bad faith against the Italian Government. The charge lies rather against our own Government for not having revealed the facts. But, if this matter was raised by the Italian Government, no such contingency was contained in the Anglo-Italian Agreement, or any of the Annexes to it, and no reference to the possibility of Italian war material being sold or given to Spain at the end of the war was ever made in the


House of Commons until a day or two ago. I feel sure that not only the House but the country would have been far more restive than they were had the possibility of the sale or gift of such material been explained fully and frankly from the very beginning, and if the Government think it such a natural and simple and straightforward matter I am utterly at a loss to understand how it was that the situation was never so explained.
It is on that account that I say I think it is far more a question of the good faith of our own Government than of the Italian Government that is involved. I must also say that, as the Italian Government did discuss this matter with our representatives, I am surprised that they, the Italian Government, did not insist upon publicity in order to guard themselves in the future against any possible charge of bad faith. This undertaking in regard to the removal of Italian war material was contained not in the Protocol of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, nor in the Annexes, but in one of the Notes attached to the Protocol, and the Prime Minister drew special attention to this Note on 2nd May, when he used these words:
Therefore I desire to call particular attention to Count Ciano's letter, which is to be found on page 28 of the White Paper, in which he gave three specific assurances to the British Government. Secondly, he reaffirms that, if this evacuation has not been completed at the moment of the termination of the Spanish civil war, all remaining Italian volunteers will forthwith leave Spanish territory and all Italian war material will simultaneously be withdrawn." — [Official Report, 2nd May, 1938; col. 541, Vol. 335.]
If the Prime Minister was seeking to draw the particular attention of the House to the matter, I think it very remarkable that he did not inform the House of this reservation about the sale or gift of Italian war material. The other day, when a reference was made to this statement of the Prime Minister, the Under-Secretary blandly remarked that "some of the war material had been returned to Italy but a considerable quantity had been handed over to the Spanish Government." If he now says, "Why should we worry? How could we prevent what happened? On the whole it is a good thing and it is better that the material should be in Spain than in Italy," why on that occasion did he go on to say that "naturally we should wish all war material to go back" to Italy?

It was a very disingenuous remark if in fact the Italian Government had told the British Government that they reserved to themselves the right to give or sell some of this material to Spain.
If the Government now say the matter is one of very little importance, why was Count Ciano ever asked for the promise about the removal of Italian war material at the conclusion of the war? Why was that promise on his part stressed in the House if it was not considered of very great importance indeed? Now we have the Under-Secretary's statement that "we cannot prevent" this material remaining in Spain. That, surely, means that Italy is under no obligation whatever to remove one single item of her war material. She might give or sell the whole of it to Spain and take home none whatever. According to the Under-Secretary we should have no cause for complaint if she did that. If that is the case, why put the matter of removing the war material from Spain into a Note, as if it were indeed a matter of importance, when it was known that the promise could be evaded and that we should have no ground for complaint if it were evaded? I asked the Prime Minister on 3rd April:
whether, in view of the end of the civil war in Spain, he proposes to make representations to the Italian Government concerning the immediate withdrawal of Italian troops and material from Spain in accordance with the undertaking of the Italian Government?
The right hon. Gentleman replied on behalf of the Prime Minister:
As the House is aware, the Italian Government have given an undertaking to withdraw all Italian volunteers and war material on the termination of the civil war in Spain. I have no reason to suppose that the Italian Government will not honour that undertaking." — [Official Report, 3rd April, 1939; col. 2471, Vol. 345.]
As hon. Members are aware, when that Reply was given, the House was not, in fact, aware that the giving or the selling of Italian war material to the Spanish Government had been the subject of discussion by the Italian Government with His Majesty's Government. On the occasion when that Reply was given, the House was not told that the undertaking in question did exclude the giving or selling of this war material. I think this incident was one more of an extraordinary series of ambiguities of phrase and statement in regard to Anglo-Italian affairs—


phrases used to soothe the House and the country at a critical stage, phrases that were deliberately chosen because they were capable of carrying quite another meaning after they had served the original purpose for which they were used. There was the phrase "a settlement in Spain." When Lord Perth replied to Count Ciano's letter, as set out in the White Paper, he said:
I hardly need to remind Your Excellency that His Majesty's Government regard a settlement of the Spanish question as a prerequisite of the entry into force of the Agreement between our two Governments.
The Agreement was brought into force before any "settlement in Spain" had been arrived at, and on 25th July of last year, the Prime Minister said that no understanding had been come to between the British and the Italian Governments as to the meaning of the phrase '' a settlement in Spain "in the Agreement. Yet the whole of the Anglo-Italian negotiations and Agreement turned on the phrase" a settlement in Spain." Surely, it is unprecedented that negotiations should have been carried on on the basis of a phrase on which, as the Prime Minister said, no understanding had been come to between the parties to the negotiations as to what it meant.
Similarly, there was the Italian undertaking to withdraw troops from Libya. Italy did withdraw some troops, and then a month or two later she returned them. We were then told from that Box, I think by the Under-Secretary of State, that the temporary withdrawal of those troops had fulfilled that clause of the Anglo-Italian Agreement. If it was the case that that clause could be fulfilled by taking some troops away and immediately sending them back, what was the purpose or value of putting that clause into the Agreement? Similarly, Italy apparently could, in a few weeks, return all her troops to Spain without there being any breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement. In the first stage of the Anglo-Italian negotiations, when the Prime Minister was recommending to the House the initiation of those negotiations, there was rather an awkward corner to turn. The late Foreign Secretary had just resigned, and I think the House was not too happy about the initiation of the negotiations. In his speech, the Prime Minister narrated a conversation which he had

had with the Italian Ambassador in London. He said:
I pointed out to him that if we made an agreement we could not ourselves go to the League and ask the League to approve that agreement if in the meantime anything had been done by the Italian Government in regard to Spain which had altered the situation in favour of General Franco, either by sending reinforcements to Spain or by failing to implement the assurances and the undertakings which they had given when they accepted the British formula. No intimation could be plainer than that." — [Official Report, 21st February, 1938; cols. 152-3, Vol. 332.]
That was the basis on which those negotiations were recommended to the House. Was that undertaking by the Italian Ambassador ever adhered to? From that moment, Italian intervention in Spain not only continued, but increased. Similarly, we have had one ambiguity after another in reply to questions. On nth April last year, I asked the Prime Minister
if he is satisfied, after examining the evidence regarding recent arrivals of Italian aircraft and other munitions in Spain, that these do not constitute an infringement of the condition on which the Anglo-Italian negotiations were instituted; namely, that, the situation in Spain should not be materially altered during the conversations by sending fresh reinforcements to General Franco?
To that the Prime Minister replied:
From assurances I have received … I have no reason to think that the position in Spain has been materially altered by recent Italian reinforcements to General Franco "— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th April, 9138; col. 734, Vol 334.]
I wonder from whom the Prime Minister received those assurances and if he received them from an interested party? I wonder if those assurances squared with the information which, I presume, the right hon. Gentleman was receiving from what the Under-Secretary this afternoon, described as the best intelligence service in the world? On 16th May, 1938, I asked the Prime Minister a similar question about "the evacuation of Italian troops from Spain and, particularly, the evacuation of the Italian troops and war material before the termination of the Spanish civil war." The Prime Minister then put the whole thing on to the Nonintervention Committee. He said that "negotiations for the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Spain at the earliest possible date are proceeding within the Non-intervention Committee." This was in May, but the right hon. Gentleman omitted in that answer to inform the House that the Non-Intervention


Committee had not met since the previous November. Yet all the responsibility was transferred to the Non-intervention Committee. In November last year, again, I asked the Prime Minister whether he proposed "to make any representation to the Italian Government concerning the presence of Italian aeroplanes and other warlike material in Spain" and the Under-Secretary replied:
The question of the presence of Italian war material in Spain is primarily a matter for the Non-intervention Committee." — [Official Report, 1oth November, 1938; col. 313, Vol. 341.]
We had a statement on this subject from the Prime Minister last week. I may say at once that I think we have to agree that, as the Non-intervention Agreement lapsed on 20th April, it certainly is the case now that any Government is perfectly entitled to supply or sell war materials to Spain and we accept that position. But in this statement the Prime Minister said:
A considerable amount of material … has been disposed of to the Spanish Government including aircraft … Full information is not available as to the form in which payment … is to be made.
It would be very interesting indeed to have some information about the form in which payment is to be made for this material. Again the right hon. Gentleman said:
During the… negotiations… mention was made of the possibility of material being sold or given away … But it was not against this eventuality that His Majesty's Government especially desired to guard.
If His Majesty's Government were not desirous of guarding against the possibility of a "considerable amount of material" being left behind in Spain, can the Under-Secretary tell us what was the eventuality which they had in mind against which they wished to guard. What was that eventuality if it was not that of a considerable amount of Italian war material being left in Spain? Why was the House not informed that the Govern-men attached little importance to such an eventuality, when the matter had been the subject of repeated questions? The Prime Minister also said:
We wished to be certain … that at the end of the war there was not a quantity of war material left in Spain under Italian control. That has been achieved." — [Official Report, 7th June, 1939; cols. 304-305, Vol. 348.]

Upon what authority and upon what information does the Prime Minister know that that has been achieved, and that the Italian war material which has been left behind in Spain is not under Italian control? Is the Prime Minister perfectly certain, for instance, that the Italian guns near Gibraltar, and the Italian guns mounted at Ceuta, are not still under effective Italian control? I think he would be a very bold man if he said that. I notice also that in the same statement the Prime Minister undertook to consider the possibility of inquiring of the Spanish Government how much Italian war material has been left in Spain. I should like to ask if any steps have been taken in the way of a beginning with those inquiries. But why ask the Spanish Government? As I said at Question time to-day, if everything has been done in such a spirit of brotherly love and good faith by Italy in this matter, why cannot we ask the Italian Government direct how much war material has been left behind and what has been the mode of payment by the Spanish Government for it?
In conclusion, I should like to say that, as I see it, an agreement is an agreement and should be honoured to the letter unless release is obtained from one of the parties to the agreement. The Italian record on the Non-intervention Committee, to put it mildly, has not been remarkable either for candour or for good faith, and if the Italian Government wish to regain their reputation, or to gain a reputation, for good faith, it is for the Italian Government to be particularly scrupulous in observing their agreements. The Under-Secretary of State, in many of his replies on this point, has seemed to me to encourage the Italian Government not to be scrupulous where their undertakings and agreements are concerned. Italy was under a firm, binding obligation to remove all her troops from Spain on 1st April, when General Franco announced that the Civil War had ended. She did not do so. When I raised the point, the Under-Secretary did not contest the fact, but said that he thought I put a "legalistic and an unfriendly interpretation" on the matter. If ever I take the Under-Secretary's house furnished from him, and I am under contract to go out on 1st April and remain until 1st May, I hope he will not put any narrow, legalistic, and unfriendly interpretation on


such an action on my part. An agreement is an agreement and, as I have said, should be honoured by the Italian Government scrupulously and to the letter.
This affair of the Italian war material left in Spain is the latest—I hope it may be the last, though I am not optimistic about that—of a long series of incidents in regard to the Civil War in Spain, the work of the Non-intervention Committee, and the two Anglo-Italian Agreements, where it is impossible to believe that our Government have treated this House with candour. If the Under-Secretary repels the charge of any want of candour in these matters, he can only do so by admitting that His Majesty's Government have been duped over and over again by the Italian Government. I have quoted several undertakings which have been given in regard to the Anglo-Italian Agreement. I have not quoted an undertaking which was given by the Prime Minister in a speech at Birmingham, an undertaking to eat his hat if Italy did not behave satisfactorily in regard to the Anglo-Italian Agreement. The other day the Prime Minister told us that he hoped he had the reputation of being usually rather better than his word, so I must leave it to him to decide if this meal is overdue or not. When I examine the long record of Signor Mussolini's dealings with this country I can only say that I feel I could be fairly asked to eat a straw hat if ever I placed any reliance upon an Italian undertaking, or upon a Government reply in regard to some breach of faith by the Italian Government.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. G. Strauss: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary one or two questions before he replies. The Prime Minister, in defending the attitude of the Government in this matter, said the other day that the purpose of the Government had been achieved. The purpose of this particular section of the Anglo-Italian Agreement was to prevent Italian arms being left in Spain under Italian control and that as the Italian troops were being removed the Italian arms would not be left in Spain under Italian control. If that had been the objective of the Government in this matter, why did the Italian Agreement specify that Italian troops and materials should be withdrawn forthwith

at the conclusion of hostilities? All that it would have been necessary to state was that Italian troops should be withdrawn. There would have been no need to mention the word "armaments," but armaments were specifically mentioned, and, therefore, one must assume the Government thought it important that Italian arms should not remain in Spain even if the Italian troops withdrew. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will give us some explanation on that point.
The second question I should like to ask is what evidence he has for suggesting that the arms left by Italy in Spain are not, in fact, to-day under effective Italian control? If we read the Italian Press we must come to the conclusion that the Italians still maintain a very considerable influence in Spanish affairs—if not considerable, a major influence. I will quote an article which appeared on 7th June in an Italian paper, "Lavoro Fascista." We know that nothing can appear in that paper which has not the general support of the Italian Government. In that paper there was a leading article entitled, "The Nightmare," stating:
The Duce stated clearly that the victory—
that is the Italian victory in Spain—
was, first, one over the democracies, and secondly one over Bolshevism. Because to fight Bolshevism without fighting democracies would be like fighting a shadow without worrying about the body that casts the shadow. The nightmare of the democracies has not ended with the return of these 20,000 soldiers of the revolution, because Italy has not abandoned Spain nor will she ever abandon Spain.
If that means anything at all it means, shortly, that Italian influence is still important, possibly supreme, in Spanish affairs, and that these arms which Italy has left in Spain are under the virtual control of the Italian Government to-day. If the Under-Secretary has any evidence to the contrary I should be very pleased to know what it is. Then somebody, I forget whether the Prime Minister or the Under-Secretary, explained away the existing situation by saying that it was only a part of the Italian armaments which had been left in Spain. What evidence has he of that? The evidence we get from the Italian Press seems to show that the major part of the Italian armaments, at least the heavy armaments, have been left in Spain. I will quote from the Rome correspondent of the "Times," who, on 29th May, wrote in


his article dealing with Italian affairs this paragraph:
Meanwhile General Gambara, who commanded the Italian legionaries, is reported to have completed arrangements for—
this is put in inverted commas—
'handing over to the Spanish army the whole of the arms of the Italian expeditionary force '.
I think we ought to know whether the whole of the arms are being handed over to the Spanish army and whether, in the conversations which were had with Count Ciano when these matters were discussed, it was ever suggested that a large volume of Italian armaments should be left in Spain; or whether the Prime Minister had the impression that it might be a few odd guns or a few aeroplanes that were no longer very useful; or whether he appreciated that the Italian Government meant to leave such large quantities in Spain. Obviously, if large quantities were left, and our Government were led to understand that there were only to be small quantities, our Government were seriously misled and we should protest immediately to the Italian Government.
As far as I can see, unless we can get some more satisfactory explanation of this matter than we have had in the past it will appear that two things have happened which we could have expected from the Italian Government and this Government. The first thing is that the Italian Government have obviously broken their pledges made in the Anglo-Italian Agreement. The second is that His Majesty's Government, as they have done throughout during the Spanish affair, have misled the House of Commons in the matter. We have had ample evidence during the last few days of how the Government misled the House and the country in regard to the number of troops and of arms sent by Germany and Italy to Spain during the war. We were always given to understand from answers to the questions with which we plied the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, week after week, about the huge volume of arms and troops which were being sent to Spain by the Fascist Governments, that although there might be some troops from those countries in Spain, yet there had been breaches on both sides and that the figures which were put forward were grossly exaggerated.
We find that this impression, given week after week to the House of Commons, was entirely false, and we find that the figures put forward from our side were an understatement; because we now have the boast from Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler about the tremendous help which those countries gave not only in material but in men as well. Everybody will agree that, in point of fact, this House was misled by the Government in this matter. If the Government say, as an excuse, that they had not got information themselves, that is a serious reflection upon the Government's own sources of information, and they should do something quickly to remedy that defect. I believe that the Undersecretary was quite right when he said that the Government's sources of information were good, and that the Government had the facts. But because of their policy in the Spanish affair of doing nothing which might upset the Italians, they deliberately misled this House and the country on the matter.
It now appears, that there has been an obvious breach of the Anglo-Italian Agreement but the Government say that there is no breach—because that is the point of the Prime Minister's statement. And we are not even going to protest about the matter. The Government are still pursuing the policy, which we believe to be so disastrous, of defending the Fascist countries, supporting them in their breaches of agreements and appeasing them in whatever action they care to take in European affairs. The Government are continuing the policy of making friends with them at the expense, not only of the democracies of Europe but, in this case, of the safety of the British Empire.

10.40 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: There is one aspect 01 this question that neither of the previous speakers has mentioned and to which I want briefly to draw the attention of the House. During the exchange of questions and answers on this subject last Monday, the Under-Secretary used these words:
His Majesty's Government are well aware, and have often stated, that from the beginning of the civil war in Spain intervention on both sides was taking place on a considerable scale." —Official Report, 12th June 1939; col. 876, Vol. 348.]
It is these words that I would like the right hon. Gentleman to expand and


justify. We have heard a great deal of the intervention that took place on the Italian and German fronts, and of the facts about that. If they were even doubted on the Government side of the House at the time when we on this side were continually finding out the facts, they cannot be doubted by anyone now. What I want to challenge is the assumption which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply the other day that intervention was in any reasonable sense of the words equal and opposite on both sides. As to the question of intervention from the beginning of the war, what kind of intervention took place on the Spanish Republican side in the early stages of the war? Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the International Brigade, which was composed of genuine volunteers? If so, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the aspect of the Non-Intervention Committee's work connected with the question of the sending of volunteers really only materialised at about the beginning of 1937. Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to the fact that combatant troops were sent on both sides? According to the "Times" correspondent in October, 1937, the numbers of the International Brigade never amounted to much more than 18,000 men, and we know that they came from practically every country in Europe, some even from America, and that no individual contingent was very large. Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to arms?
I beg him to answer this question: We all know the country that has been in the minds of those who sit behind him when they have made the charge that has been repeatedly made throughout the Spanish civil war. The nation that they had in mind was Soviet Russia. Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that Soviet Russia sent arms to Spain to any substantial extent before October, 1936? Did they do so at the beginning of the Spanish war? Is it not the case that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, like ourselves and France, signed a Nonintervention Pact early in the war, and that M. Litvinov, speaking in the following September at the League Assembly, said he only did so reluctantly because he did not wish to differ from the action that the democratic Powers were taking. They signed the Pact at about the same

time as we did, and they kept honourably to that Pact. I do not say that nothing was sent; a certain quantity of planes might have been sent; but I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say whether there was intervention, on anything like the scale of the intervention of Germany and Italy, from Russia or any other country at any time during the war, and whether there was intervention on any considerable scale from Russia until it became perfectly plain that Germany and Italy were sending arms and combatants—not volunteers—on a very substantial scale.
At that time M. Maisky gave full warning to the Non-intervention Committee, in the classic phrase which I wish had been adopted by all these countries, that in the future his country intended to observe the Non-intervention Pact in the same spirit in which other nations were observing it—that thenceforth they would observe non-intervention in the same manner in which it was observed by other Powers. It was only in mid-October, if my information is right, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say it is wrong, that Russia began to send arms to any considerable extent. I know, at any rate, that that was M. Blum's opinion, and I suppose he may be regarded as the mother of the Non-intervention Pact. The claim to be its putative father may be disputed between members of His Majesty's Government. The Pact was begotten, I think we may say, on this side of the Channel, but it was conceived by the French, and first saw the light of day under the aegis of M. Blum's Government. And he; stated that, as far as his knowledge went, there was no considerable sending of arms to Spain by Russia until mid-October—and then after warning had been given by M. Maisky that henceforth Soviet Russia would observe the Pact in the same spirit as other countries.
I have watched this aspect of the- matter from the beginning, because in September, 1936, soon after the War began, I was asked to be chairman of a small unofficial committee, which set itself to examine evidence of intervention—which everybody except His Majesty's Government already knew was being undertaken by Germany, Spain, and Portugal on a considerable scale. At that time we made it known, in the papers and in every way


we could, that we wanted to receive information as to intervention on either side in Spain, and we received considerable quantities of evidence, which was subsequently published in a pamphlet, that there was substantial intervention by Italy and Germany, a good deal of it with the connivance of the Portuguese authorities. But during that time not one single person suggested that Russia had intervened. On the contrary, the taunt in the pro-Franco Press was, ''Here are these people more royalist than the King. They want the British Government to supply arms to Spain, and even Russia is not doing it."
The charge that Russia was intervening and that Germany and Italy had intervened only because Russia was doing so sprang up some months later than that; and I do not think there has ever been one iota of evidence for that charge. It became almost a cliché in the mouths of Ministers, when we spoke of intervention by Italy and Germany, to reply that there was intervention on both sides. Our answer was that intervention was official on the part of Italy and Germany and that there was nothing comparable to it on the part of any country on the Republican side. It is rather a pity that now, when the facts about Italy and Germany are known to everybody, because Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler have boasted of intervention, we should again hear from the Government this unfair charge that there was intervention on both sides from the beginning of the war. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman either to justify or withdraw his charge. When, at long last, we are drawing closer to Russia, when a pact or alliance with Soviet Russia is under discussion, I think this is an unfortunate time to repeat against Soviet Russia charges for which there has never been one iota of justification.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Wise: I want to reply, somewhat briefly, to what has been said by the hon. Lady. We have departed some distance from the question originally raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), but it is worth while to recall the real facts of intervention in Spain, which are all well known. Of course, there was intervention on both sides. The 1,400 aeroplanes shot down by the Nationalist forces were not all built in Barcelona, and the 48,000 prisoners of war of foreign extraction in

the concentration camps of General Franco before the end of the war had not all appeared in Spain as purists inspired suddenly to go to defend a distressed republic. These are facts as patent as any possible evidence for intervention on the other side.

Miss Rathbone: My point was that intervention, such as it was, was on a very much smaller scale, and it did not take place at the beginning of the war, but only when it was called into existence by the extent of German and Italian intervention. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that these Russian aeroplanes went to Spain at the beginning of the war, or that the Russians ever equalled in number the men sent by Germany and Italy?

Mr. Wise: The hon. Lady has thrown out a perfectly fair challenge as to whether intervention began on the Republican side at the beginning of the war. Not all of us have forgotten that the attack on Madrid was stopped by the International Brigade long before any German or Italian soldiers were sent.

Sir P. Harris: Hitler boasted about it.

Mr. Wise: I do not want to stop the hon. Baronet's permanent indignation, but what we are discussing is a question of dates, and not a question of whether Germans and Italians were in fact there. All I say is that the International Brigade stopped the attack on Madrid before either Germans or Italians were sent.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. Member in discussing intervention does not suggest that the arrival of the International Brigade— British, Czechs, Frenchmen, and so on— at Madrid constitutes intervention by the Governments of Great Britain, France, Czecho-Slovakia?

Mr. Wise: The hon. and learned Gentleman's mind is of a becoming subtlety, but really he must understand that the Government of Russia is an authoritarian Government.

Mr. Pritt: There were no Russians in the International Brigade there.

Mr. Wise: Really that is the point in dispute.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: As the only Member of this House here to-night who was in Spain two months after the civil war broke out, and before the attack on


Madrid, I would like to say that I at that time visited every town of any size on the Spanish Government's side, and I went to the Toledo front and the northern front, and the only Russian I met the whole time was Mr. Rosenberg, and at the same time I did spend a considerable amount of time behaving in a rather undignified way when these large Italian and German bombers came over with their machine guns.

Mr. Wise: The fact that the hon. Gentleman met only one Russian is not indisputable proof that there were no other Russians there. The same argument might probably apply if the hon. Member met only 2,000 or 3,000 Spaniards, but I believe there were rather more than that. But the fact is, I think, fairly well accepted that there was, of course, intervention on both sides.

Sir P. Harris: Did the English Government intervene then?

Mr. Wise: We are not discussing the question of whether the English Government intervened. The fact that Russian mechanics and Russian airmen went to Spain, and went there on a very consider able scale—

Mr. Pritt: When?

Mr. Wise: —during the course of the civil war is a clear indication that the Russian Government were well aware of what they were doing, and, indeed, encouraging them to do it. We cannot on this side of the Housebelieve—in spite of the legal subtlety of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) and the enthusiasm of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) —that the Russian Government is so incompetent that, with its magnificent police service, it has no control over the movements of its own nationals.

Mr. Pritt: Nobody suggested that. They openly announced what they were going to do, and the only question was, when?

Mr. Wise: The question is now one which might very well be left to the past. The Spanish civil war is over, and the main task of this country to-day is to endeavour not to go too far in antagonis-

ing the Government of Spain. The people of Spain are our friends. The last time we quarrelled seriously with them was at the Battle of Trafalgar, and that was against the wishes of the bulk of the Spanish people. Surely it would be much better that we should devote ourselves now to a serious effort to improve relations between this country and the Government of Spain. They are, first, an important friend, and they might be a very inconvenient enemy. In the same way, it is possibly only right that we should endeavour, as far as possible, to cultivate friendly relations with every other Power on the Continent of Europe. To bicker now about whether war material was left behind after the Italian troops were withdrawn from Spain or whether it was not is really unnecessarily straining the relations which are not nearly friendly enough between our two countries. Let us at least be delighted that the Italian troops have been withdrawn from Spain, and let us remember that hon. Members opposite spent their time assuring us that they never would be. The policy of His Majesty's Government, tempered by the restraint that has been shown, has been amply justified by the result.
As the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut-Commander Fletcher) very truly said, we do not question the right of any Power to sell munitions to any other Power, and I am not quite sure really what his complaint to-night is. We do not question the light of the Italian Government to sell material to the Spaniards. It does not really much matter whether they leave behind material which is already there or whether they take that material away and sell them fresh material. In any case, it is a legitimate sale. I gather that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was really complaining that our Government did not give him interesting commercial details about these transactions during the past few months. A perfectly fair answer to that question is that, quite frankly, it is not the business of the British Government whether the Italian Government sell materials to Spain or whether they do not. I hope that to-night will be the last fling of this unfortunate Spanish predilection on the part of hon. Members opposite. They must admit that it has done them very well as a red herring for the last two years, and I suggest that they should now find some


possibly more domestic and useful hare to hunt in the days to come.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for the speech of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise). It happens that I am the secretary of several organisations connected with Spain, and I believe that the hon. Member was one of the patrons of the organisation called "The Friends of Nationalist Spain."

Mr. Wise: I am afraid not.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [CaptainMargesson.]

Mr. Roberts: A number of hon. Members who took the same point of view as the hon. Member in the Spanish conflict were connected with that organisation. I received a rather interesting letter only this morning. I thought it was rather apposite to the occasion. It comes from a correspondent who says that he is indebted to a friend of his for the address of the organisation, and he asks me to put him in contact with someone in Nationalist Spain with whom he can correspond. He wants to join an organisation the name of which appeared to be "The Friends of Nationalist Spain." It happens that he belongs to the City of Birmingham, but I suppose that is pure chance. What is interesting about the communication is that he sends me a document which is a denunciation of the Spanish Republican Government and its actions. It is far too long for me to quote, and, in any case, it is not specially new or interesting. [Hon. Members: "Then why refer to it?"] There is some object in what I have to say. It speaks of the propaganda of Nationalist Spain, and it happens to be printed in Hamburg, and it comes from Birmingham. That is one of the many instances where certain hon. Members of this House, who have spent a good deal of their time and energy in championing the cause of General Franco have, in fact, been doing the work of Hitler in Europe, just as the British Government have by concealing the facts of the Spanish war.
The Under-Secretary said that he did not know that Italian ships had been

put at the disposal of General Franco. I well remember asking him a question on the point, to which he replied that he had no information. I asked him whether four destroyers had been put at the disposal of General Franco, and whether he had any recent information. His reply was a categorical "No." I had the information from a nonintervention officer who had seen the names of these Italian destroyers being painted out and Spanish names being put in their place. The Under-Secretary told me that he had no information. When I challenged that statement in a supplementary question, he explained to me that he had no recent information. He had the information two months sooner and it had taken two months to reach me. Therefore, he was in order in saying that he had no recent information. That is the way that information has been kept from this House by a quibble which sometimes has gone very near to something which is much less in keeping with the traditions of this House than a verbal quibble. I do not want to detain the House more than to say that in concealing the truth from the House I believe that private Members and the Government have been assisting Herr Hitler to establish his position, and also assisting Signor Mussolini. They have now a position of immense strategical importance which it will be impossible to make up for by a little flattery to-day of the present rulers in Spain.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: May I ask the Under-Secretary to answer one question when he replies? We have been told that the policy of His Majesty's Government in future should be one of friendly relations with the present Spanish Government and that the question of the war materials which have been left should not interfere with this policy. May I ask whether His Majesty's Government will establish these friendly relations irrespective of the Spanish Government meeting British claims with respect to British sailors who were killed in Spain and British ships which were sunk?

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: There are two issues of real importance to which the Undersecretary ought to address himself tonight. The first is the danger of the Italian armaments which have been left in Spain to the British Empire, and the


second is the question whether the Government have been wholly candid with the House in relation to non-intervention and the Anglo-Italian Agreement. My hon. and gallant Friend made out a powerful case, and I do not want to cover the same ground which he has covered, still less to go into the history as to whether Russia's intervention was more than Germany's or not. I want to bring out the record of the Government in the information which they have given from time to time to this House, and to that end I want to begin with the summer and autumn of 1936.
We believed then that from the beginning of the war Germany and Italy were intervening as Governments on the side of General Franco; we believed that their intervention was decisive; that their transport of Moors from Africa to Spain, their protection by aircraft of General Franco's transports, in fact saved him from defeat in the early weeks of the war. We believed that as time went on there was intervention on a far greater scale, that arms and munitions were furnished almost without limit, that Government troops were sent, not volunteers, but trained troops of the armed forces of Italy and Germany, that the land forces numbered tens of thousands—we said at least 60,000 in the case of Italy and 10,000 in the case of Germany—and that they were giving help on sea, on land and in the air, and that, in fact, from the first day onwards Germany and Italy were openly belligerents on the side of General Franco. At that time much great evidence was produced by British journalists, and by the committee presided over by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities which supported that general view. We drew the conclusion that General Franco was getting everything he wanted. The Government contested that view from the first. They told us, with every kind of evasion and excuse, that we were wrong. They said that, of course, there were "volunteers on both sides." If we produced any specific piece of information they had no confirmation or any recent news. If we mentioned that a ship had arrived with a large number of Italian troops on board in any given port, our Consul had never seen the ship—perhaps because on the voyage the name had been changed. And it reached the point that when the

Spanish Government put in an official memorandum to the League of Nations with many documents taken from German and Italian prisoners captured on the field and we asked that it should be translated for this House in order that we might have (the real information, the Government said that such a translation would be a very difficult matter.
In our view all this amounted to a systematic suppression of what the Government ought to have known were the facts. I say "ought to have known." We have in Spain a great number of consular agents—56, in fact—one or more in every port. We have consuls in every port in Italy and Germany, and military attaches in all these countries, and we have a very expensive Secret Service, the Under-Secretary has told us that it is the best in the world. If the Departments in Whitehall did not know the number of men in Spain and the armaments they had, then there are many people in the Departments who ought to be sacked. Now we know, from the very highest sources, that we were right and that our only mistake was that we had understated the facts. We know it from Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler. Signor Mussolini said the other day that Italy had not hesitated to give her full aid openly from the first days right up to the final victory. His official Service paper made the statement, which the Under-Secretary had not heard of to-day, that 100,000 Italian troops had been sent to Spain between 15th December, 1936, and 15th April, 1937. It gave the fullest information about the work of the Italian Navy, how submarines had sunk ships, how they attacked the "Cervantes" and other Republican warships, and of course all details about air intervention. Herr Hitler did the same. He told us how his Junkers brought the Moors from Africa to Spain and that there were 18,000 Germans in Spain. If these were the facts —and of course they were—if there was intervention on that scale, how could Whitehall remain ignorant of it? If Ministers did not know, it is a very serious thing indeed for the working of Parliamentary Government in this country.
Unhappily there is a great deal of evidence that not all Ministers have been entirely frank with the House. I would in that connection particularly mention the Prime Minister. When the right hon.


Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) resigned, he did so over Italian intervention in Spain. His whole case was that it was no use making a Treaty with Signor Mussolini until he withdrew his troops from Spain. On 21st February the Prime Minister out-Edened Eden. He said of course we must have a settlement of the Spanish question and Italy must send no reinforcements, and he told us that Signor Mussolini had accepted the British formula for the evacuation of troops. He assured us that he by his method would get the Italians out of Spain a good deal quickly than the late Foreign Secretary would have done by his. Two months later he brought us his Agreement. It contained a specific pledge about the withdrawal of troops and arms. Signor Mussolini confirmed his full adherence to the United Kingdom formula for the evacuation of foreign volunteers and pledged himself to give practical and real application to such evacuation at a moment which should be determined by the Non-intervention Committee on the basis of the above-mentioned formula. All armaments, as well as troops, were to be withdrawn. On the excuse that the Italian Government could not act until General Franco had accepted that plan of non-intervention drawn up by the Nonintervention Committee, we allowed it to remain a dead letter. Troops poured in.
That was a plain violation of the undertaking that Signor Mussolini had given. The Prime Minister did not take that view. In November he brought the Agreement to the House although that violation of the Agreement had occurred, and he still spoke of the good intentions of the Italian Government. The next day, after the House had agreed that that Agreement should come into force, the Foreign Secretary in another place told a very different tale. He said that Signor Mussolini, from the very first conversation between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, had told us that he was not prepared to see General Franco defeated. I said last year, and I say again now, that if our Government, six months or more before the Agreement was ratified, took the view that Signor Mussolini did not mean to allow General Franco to be defeated, they should have told the House so before they asked it to agree to the ratification of the Agreement. I submit that they were guilty of

a gross lack of candour. It is exactly the same lack of candour which they have shown over this matter of the arms which are now being left in Spain. It is another example of exactly the same thing, but a worse example. The Agreement states quite clearly that
all Italian war material will be withdrawn.
That was the text presented to us on 2nd May of last year; but six weeks before, Count Ciano had told Lord Perth that some Italian material might be given or sold to the Spanish Government. That was absolutely inconsistent with the pledge which Signor Mussolini gave. The Government may say that it is no longer Italian when it has been sold or given to the Spanish Government. That is a verbal quibble, and nothing else. I am afraid that what has happened is that they have now acquiesced in a violation of the agreement in respect of these Italian arms; but much worse than that, they acquiesced in that violation six weeks before the agreement was even signed, and did so without telling the House.
I come back to the two main questions on which, I hope, the Under-Secretary will speak. First, is it really safe to leave these arms in Spain? Are they no danger to us? Why is it that Signor Mussolini is leaving them there? Do we really think there is no longer the danger of a knockout blow against France? Of course not. Secondly, the Government have consistently suppressed the facts. Do they think that democracy, which is now on its trial, can be made to work unless Parliament and the people are told the truth?

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): As has been said in the Debate, we have debated this question times without number, and a very large number of Parliamentary questions have been asked upon it. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), in a speech in which he investigated the whole ground, confined himself chiefly to the question at issue, and to which I will turn my attention; namely, the fact that certain war material which was with the Italian forces is now to remain in Spain in the hands of the Spanish Government. I shall confine myself to that main issue as raised by the hon. and gallant Member, and I am afraid I shall not be able to go into


the wider questions that have been raised in the course of the Debate.
The hon. and gallant Member said that if he took a house of mine—which I should always be ready to let him take, in view of his honest character—he would leave it on 1st April. I may say that it seems to be fashionable now for hon. Members to exchange houses and estates, and we almost had a case of that yesterday between the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood). But when the hon. and gallant Member leaves my house, if he takes it, I sincerely hope that he will take with him all his speech material. He has an unrivalled knowledge of the Official Report and the answers to Parliamentary questions, and to-night he has exhibited an unrivalled knowledge of the many exchanges we have had over the Floor of the House. Those exchanges have not been entirely satisfactory to him and to some other hon. Members. I have had opportunities before of explaining, quite sincerely, the very real difficulty that a Minister is in in answering the almost incredible number of Parliamentary questions on this one subject over the last 15 or 18 months. In my capacity of Under-Secretary, I at any rate have done my best to give the House the information in my possession. If I were to waste the time of the House in doing so, I could give many instances in which hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway, have put questions to me with a view to tripping me up, just as they accuse the Government of trying to mislead the House, but I have no intention to-night of indulging in that kind of sport. It is my duty to serve the House and I would not wish to spend time trying to prove that hon. Members wished to trip me up in these matters.
The fact is that, on these questions, I have given the House the information in my possession quite sincerely, and if hon. Members have found, in these many answers, that I have given certain points which have upset them, I can only be thankful that there are so few as those which have been raised to-night. I can reply that there have been many cases in which information was vouched for by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in putting questions, yet which the

Government, upon sincere examination, with our sources of information, have proved to be false.

Mr. Noel-Baker: What I have said tonight is proved by statements of Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini.

Mr. Butler: That has not been so in every case. The hon. Member will recall many cases of ships supposed to be arriving in certain Spanish ports, where, when the facts were investigated, we found that in many instances those statements were wrong. I have never imputed to any hon. Member any lack of candour in giving me information which he sincerely thought to be correct, but I think this illustrates that this exchange of information raises an extremely difficult question. I have often wanted to be a Minister in charge of a Department of my own, knowing the facts of my own Department instead of being perpetually called upon to answer in this House upon the activities of foreign Governments in foreign lands, and in circumstances which must impose great difficulty, and indeed great danger, upon any British Minister.
Let me address myself to the questions which have been put by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). He raised the question of whether we had been candid with the House and he discussed several past instances. He instanced what my Noble Friend said in another place, on which I answered on 2ist December, in the Debate on the Adjournment, to which I refer the hon. Member in order to save time. That was in reference to Signor Mussolini's words, which the hon. Member quoted just now. The main bone of contention is that the House should have been informed earlier, that the Italian Government had indicated the posibility that material might be sold or given to the Spanish Government. Let me remind the House that the Prime Minister said that fears had been expressed by the Government that at the end of the civil war the Italians who had been fighting in Spain might not be withdrawn, that the Italian Government might seek territorial advantages in Spain itself or her oversea possessions, and, even if the territorial status quo remained undisturbed, the Italian Government might desire to obtain concessions in Spain, such as naval or air bases where war material might remain concentrated in their hands. It has always been the


main objective of His Majesty's Government to prevent that. When I am accused, or the Government are accused, of misleading the House, I must remind hon. Members of some words which the Prime Minister used on 2nd May, 1938, in bringing before the House the Anglo-Italian Agreement. These words indicate what was the main objective of His Majesty's Government and on that there has been no question of wishing to mislead the House. The Prime Minister said:
With regard to Spain, there have been suspicions, which have been frequently expressed, that Italy not only when the time came would refuse to withdraw volunteers in accordance with the Non-Intervention Committee's Agreement, but that she also was aiming at acquiring for herself some permanent position, either in Spain itself or in some of Spain's overseas possessions." — [Official Report, 2nd May, 1938; col. 541, Vol. 335.]
That was the main thing that we wished to avoid, and the Prime Minister goes on in the remainder of the speech to define the assurances given by the Italian Government, which included the assurance to which reference has been made by the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for Derby that Italia men and war material would be withdrawn.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister said it would be kept in the spirit and the letter.

Mr. Butter: I am coming to the present position. Since that date the House has been informed that in the discussions which took place before the Anglo-Italian Agreement was signed, Count Ciano mentioned the possibilty that material would be left in Spain—sold or given to the Spanish Government. The negotiations which took place before the Italian Agreement was signed took a long time, as hon. Members may well imagine. There were very many talks, and this was one of the points mentioned in those talks, but I think it is exaggerated to say that the Government were misleading the House when the Prime Minister stated on 2nd May, 1938, that our main objective was what I have said. As he has reminded the House in the last week, this objective has remained the same all that time.
The hon. Members opposite have asked why we did not think this point important—the point of leaving war material

in Spain. It was not the main objective of our policy, and that is the reason why the mention by Count Ciano of this subject was not brought before the House before. We realised that after the end of the war any international agreement preventing the sale of war material to the Spanish Government would lapse, and in fact, on 20th April, such international agreement did lapse. Now we cannot prevent any Government from selling or, indeed, giving war material to the Spanish Government. Therefore, we were powerless to prevent the transactions which have taken place; and there is no difference between these transactions and any other transactions that might have taken place, such as the return of war material to Italy and the sending of it back again as a purchase to Spain, or, indeed, the later sale of war material from Italy or any other country to Spain. While naturally we do not want to see any more war material than is necessary in Spain itself, or indeed in any other country, yet we are unable to prevent these transactions. It is for that reason that the main objective that we have had in mind has always been as I have expressed it.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) asked whether we were intending to proceed with certain claims. I can assure him, without going into details, because the matter really does not arise here, that we are pressing those claims. The hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) asked why arms were mentioned. The reason why war material was mentioned was that we expected that any war material in Italian hands should be removed, and a certain proportion of war material has been removed, although the hon. Member is right in saying that the heavier war material—the tanks and so forth—has to a large extent been left. The reason why we mentioned war material was that, having in mind the same objective defined by the Prime Minister on 2nd May, we did not want war material to be left in Spain under Italian control to make a possible focus for Italian control in Spain. We have no reason to believe that the transactions to which I have referred have had the result which we intended to avoid. That, I think, answers the further question I was asked on that point.
The present position is that practically all the Italians have left Spam, and that most Italian airmen have left Majorca.


Since answering questions this afternoon I am glad to be able to say that a further batch of Italian airmen have left, and there are now only about 40 remaining there, and we believe they are going soon. The Germans, we understand, have all left the island. The position now is that, omitting this transaction which the

Government are powerless to prevent, the spirit and the letter of the agreement have been carried out, and now it only remains to make friends with the new Government in Spain.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.